iiMwe — — 
HD 

9070. 4 
U5 

1836 


iii 

lii 


In 


e: 

I: 


V 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2016 


https://archive.org/details/cottoncultivatioOOunit 


24th  Congress, 
&'essioji. 


[ Doc.  No.  146.  ] 


Ho.  OF  Reps. 
Treas.  Dept. 


COTTON. 

CULTIVilTION,  MANUFACTURE  AND  FOREIGN  TRADE  OF, 


T T E U 

FROM 

THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  TREASEEY, 

TRANSMITTING 

Tables  and  ?iotcs  on  the  Cultivation.^  Manufacture.^  and  Foreign  Trade 

of  Cotton. 


March  4,  1836. 

Eeferrod  to  the  Committee  on  ManiifacUires,  and  15,000  extra  copies  ordered  to  be  printed 
under  the  direction  of  tlie  Secretaiy  of  the  Treasury. 


Treasury^  Department,  Feb.  29,  1836. 

Sir;  Certain  tabular  statements  and  notes  on  the  cultivation  and  maiui- 
facture,  together  with  the  imports  and  exports  of  cotton,  are  herewith  sub- 
mitted to  the  House  of  Representatives,  in  compliance  with  their  resolution 
of  the  12th  instant: 

Resolved,  Tiuit  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasurer  be  directed  to  transmit 
to  this  House  the  tables  indicated  in  a note  to  his  annual  report,  showing 
the  progress  in  the  cultivation  and  manufacture  of  cotton  in  the  United 
States,  and  in  other  countries  ; also,  showing  the  comparative  quantity  and 
value  of  exports  and  imports  of  cotton,  and  cotton  manufactures,  in  tlie 
United  States  and  other  countries.” 

In  order  that  the  true  cliaracter  of  these  tables  may  be  understood,  and 
no  expectation  as  to  their  contents  be  formed,  which  an  examination  of 
them  might  disappoint,  a brief  explanation  will  be  given  of  their  origin, 
progress,  and  present  state  of  completion. 

They  were  not  commenced  till  the  last  year ; were  at  first  very  limited 
in  their  object,  and  have  been  attended  to  since,  oni}^  at  a few  brief  inter- 
vals of  leisure.  In  the  course  of  tliat  year,  while  making  official  investi- 
gations, they  were  begun,  with  a view  to  the  collection  of  such  general 
statistical  facts  as  might  enable  me  to  form  a satisfactory  opinion,  upon  the 
extent  of  influence  which  the  rapid  increase  of  the  growth  and  manufac- 
ture of  cotton  in  this  country  had  exercised,  and  was  likely  to  exercise 
for  a few  ensufeg  years,  upon  our  revenue  from  foreign  importations,  and 
from  the  sales  of  the  public  lands  in  the  southwestern  States  and  Territories. 

In  the  pursuit  of  these  inquiries,  the  influences  of  the  trade  in  cotton, 
whether  raw  or  manufactured,  on  our  exports  of  domestic  products,  on 
our  imports  of  cotton  fabrics  in  particular,  and  generally  upon  all  our 
Blair  & Rives,  printer.s. 


o 


[ Doc.  No.  146.  ] 

foreign  importation,  as  far  as  dependent  on  the  amount  of  our  exports  ; 
Mild,  in  fine,  its  effect  upon  our  wliole  foreign  commerce,  as  well  as  on 
many  other  branches  of  our  national  prosperity,  became  highly  interesting 
portions  of  the  principal  investigation. 

Tliat  investigation  was  also  originally  confined  to  the  culture  and  maim- 
facture  of  cotton  in  this  country  since  the  adoption  of  our  constitution. 
But  m the  course  of  my  inquiries,  finding  that  the  cultivation  of  cotton 
here,  and  the  extent  of  onr  exportations  of  it,  were  intimately  connected 
with  the  grovUh  and  exportation  as  well  as  the  manufacture  of  it  in  other 
countries,  and  that  not  only  our  foreign  trade,  but  our  foreign  relations  of 
peace  and  war,  wmuld  probalily  be  hereafter  nmch  iniliienced  by  the  com- 
mercial connections  which  the  growth  and  manufacture  of  cotton  appeared 
lo  have  established  between  tliem  and  us,  I endeavored,  incidentally,  to 
collect  and  preserve,  and  afterwards  arrange,  such  general  statistical  facts 
upon  these  points,  during  the  same  jierjcd,  in  relation  to  otlier  countries, 
but  chieily  England  and  France,  as  could  be  obtained  amidst  the  pressure 
of  other  business  in  the  short  time  partially  devoted  to  the  investigation  of 
this  subject. 

Many  of  the  statements  m the  columns  from  books  and  reports  might 
doubtless  I lave  been  made  fuller,  could  I have  commanded  greater  leisure 
lor  tliis  object,  and  especially  migiit  more  have  been  added  by  way  of  esti- 
mate from  a fe^v  important  data  embraced  under  several  particular  heads. 
The  wliole  topic,  likewise,  of  tlie  domestic  trade  in  raw  cotton  and  its  ma- 
niifacUires,  between  different  portions  of  the  same  country,  and  especially 
oi  tlie  United  ^S tat.es,  might  liave  been  usefully  embraced,  had  it  come  more 
directly  within  the  scope  of  my  inquiries,  and  had  lime  permitted.  It 
won  Id 'throw  much  light  on  the  coasting  trade:  communication  by  roads 
and  canals;  difiorent  habits  and])ursuits  of  the  people  in  different  portions 
of  the  same  country,  and  their  reciprocal  dependence  for  certain  rarv  and 
manufactured  articles,  tending  so  strongly,  as  for  exa.mple  it  does  here,  to 
preserve  iret|uent,  constant,  and  friendlv  inteicourse,  and  to  cultivate  and 
strengthen,  for  both  conxmiiience  and  interest,  the  bonds  of  harmony  and 
union. 

But  unable  to  enlarge  on  that,  my  great  solicitude  xvas  to  obtain,  m tlie  first 
ijlaco,  pertinent  facts,  in  as  great  a number  as  practicable,  with  a view*  to  form 
afterwards  such  estimates  and  inferences  connected  with  the  general  object 
originally  proposed,  as  miglit  throw  some  new  light  upon  it.  The  sources 
whence  inost  of  those  facts  were  drawn  I noted  down,  in  order  to  determine 
iifter\vards  the  dvcgree  of  reliance  which  should  be  placed  on  such  as  might 
be  found  to  appear  doubtful.  In  the  notes  appended  to  the  several  tables, 
the  authorities  for  most  of  the  facts  are  accordingly  referred  to.  'Where 
the  authorities  are  not  given,  the  statements  in  tlie  columns  oi'e  usually  the* 
result  of  my  own  computations,  deduced  from  the  best  iriiormation  at  my 
e.onmiaiKl. 

Having  proceeded  far  enough  in  the  inquiries  and  statements  to  answer 
the  purposes  originaily  contemplated,  I formed  the  general  estimates,  deduc- 
uons,  and  opinions,  upon  the  influence  of  the  growth  and  manufacture  of 
cotton  in  this  country  over  its  rexmnue,  commerce,  and  prospei'ity,  which 
were  expuessed  in  several  places  in  my  last  annual  report,  and  xvhich,  with 
comparative^  statements  connected  with  this  subject,  are,  on  account 
.,).f  tiieir  intimate  comiection,  extracted  and  appended.  (Marked  Q,.) 

Tiiose  tables:  l>eing  now  called  for  by  tbe  House  of  Representatives,  they 


THE 


[ Doc.  No.  146.  ] o 

arc  submitted  \vitliout  many  of  those  detaiisj  which  exist  on  ali  points,  aii' 
particularly  on  such  as  relate  to  the  different  species  and  localities  of  th 
manufactures,  and  to  the  kinds  of  machinery  employed  in  the  several  opeia 
tions.  These  last  were  easily  obtainable,  and  to  some  inquirers  might  b 
very  desirable.  But  as  that  minuteness  did  not  come  within  the  scop 
ot  my  original  examinations,  what  I have  thus  hastily  collected  an 
presented  must  be  regarded  rather  as  a few  general  facts  for  comparisor 
and  as  hints  or  suggestions  to  he  followed  out  by  others  who  enjoy  mor 
leisure,  than  ns  a full  compilation  of  statistics  on  the  subject  of  cottor 
Yet  in  their  present  imperfect  and  meagre  state,  under  some  heads,  the 
still  contain  under  each,  it  is  hoped,  a few  data  which  may  prove  usefu 
since  they  bring  together,  in  a condensed  and  systematic  view,  man 
scattered  details  on  a subject  very  important  to  the  finances  of  the  countr 
at  this  time,  as  well  as  to  its  future  prosperity  in  each  of  the  three  gren 
branches  of  national  industry — agriculture,  commerce,  and  manufoctnrei 
Any  inferences  or  suggestions  on  the  infiuence  of  tariffs,  upon  the  growtJ 
or  manufacture  of  cotton,  or  on  the  propriety  of  protection  to  muimfac 
tures,  or  otlier  branches  of  our  national  interesfs,  which  have  been  so  mud 
agitated  in  tbrmer  years,  were  studiouslv"  avoided,  as  not  called  for  by  th 
occasion,  or  the  present  condition  of  tfie  country. 

The  notes  contain  numerous  illustrations,  additional  explanations,  ata 
facts,  which  could  not  be  conveniently  incorporated  into  the  tables  ; am 
some  of  wliicii  are  very  material  for  deciding  correcliy  upon  the  accurac 
of  the  figures  and  statements  contained  in  the  difterent  columns. 

'riie  general  arrangement  of  the  tables  and  notes  is  cuch,  as  to  preseii 
first  the  facts  and  estimates  on  tlie  growth  or  the  crop  of  cotton,  so  far  a 
practicable,  for  a number  of  different  years,  in  those  countries  in  the  work 
where  it  is  most  cultivated.  They  exhibit  next  the  foreign  trade  in  rav 
cotton,  by  giving  the  exports  atid  imports  of  it  at  several  periods  from  am 
to  most  of  tlu,,'  places  abroad  whore  it  coii.s’tiiutes  an  article  of  much  com 
m?.rce.  ■ 

The  third  set  of  tables  shows  the  amount  and  condition  of  the  mannfac 
tnre  of  cotton,  and  its  consumptioji  at  diiferent  dates,  in  most  of  the  couii 
tries  where  it  is  extensively  used ; and  the  last  series  shows  the  foreigi 
trade  in  those  manufactures,  during  a number  of  years,  from  and  to  main 
of  the  principal  places  engaged  in  it. 

A more  minute  explanation  of  the  contents  of  each  table  and  its  note 
is  given,  for  convenience  of  reference,  in  the  schedule  annexed. 

With  these  hasty  explanatory  remarks, 

I liave  t!ie  honor  to  be, 

\’ery  res|)ectfiilly. 

Your  obedient  servant, 

LEVI  WOODBURY, 
^'ecretary  of  the  Treasury. 

Hon.  .1,1.  ,11'S  Iv.  PoLK^ 

Speaker  of  the  Htnisc  of  Representatives. 


[ Doc.  No.  146.  ] 


SCI1EDU1.E  OF  THE  TABLES  AND  NOTES. 

and  Cj  i^elate  to  the  crop  or  growth  of  raw  cotton, 

gives  the  quantity  supposed  to  be  raised  in  the  world  at  a few  different 
leriods,  and  in  each  country  where  it  grows, 

gives  the  quantity  computed  to  be  grown,  at  several  dales,  in  each  of  the 
mithern  and  southwestern  States  of  this  Union, 

gives  the  prices  of  it  iiere,  and  in  England,  for  many  years ; the  capital 
iiid  the  number  of  persons  estimated  to  be  employed  in  growing  it,  and, 
he  value  of  the  whole  crop  here  and  elsewhere, 

E,  Ey  G,  Hy  relate  to  th  e foreign  trade y or  the  ex^yorts  and  imports  of 

raw  cotton. 

gives  the  exports  from  the  different  quarters  of  the  world  chiefly  en  - 
^aged  in  that  trade,  at  a few  separate  periods. 

gives  the  exports  from  most  of  the  important  places  in  the  United  States* 
vliere  it  is  shipped. 

gives  the  exports  from,  and  to,  most  of  the  countries,  engaged  extensively 
n this  trade, 

gives  the  imports  of  it  into  England,  at  several  dates,  and  the  amoiml 
rom  each  of  the  most  important  countries  raising  it. 
gives  the  imports  into  France,  and  whence,  as  well  as  the  imports  into 
L number  of  other  places, 

Ky  Ly  relate  to  the  manufacture  and  consumption  of  raw  cotton,  in 

several  coiintries. 

pves  the  amount  used  and  maiiuflictured  in  most  of  the  countnes  where 
aw  cotton  is  much  worked  np. 

gives  the  value  of  the  manufactui'es  of  it  in  several  countries,  and  tiie 
unount  of  capital  employed  in  them, 

gives  the  spindles  and  number  of  persons  employed  in  the  inamifactnre, 
n some  places,  at  difterent  poriods, 

M.  Ny  Oy  relate  to  the  foreign  trade  in  cotton  ynanvfacinres . 
gives  tlie  exports  of  tliem  from  several  countries, 

gives  the  exports  of  them  from  England,  and  the  am^imt.s  exported 
fience  to  several  enumerated  places,  at  difterent  periods,  so  as  to  exhibit 
n the  same  table  the  imports  of  them  into  tiiesame  places  from  England, 
gives  the  exports  of  them  from  several  other  countries,  and  whither. 

\s  the  last  of  the  fables,  and  merely  presents  an  exhibit  of  the  dates  of 
lie  most  important  changes  in  the  growth,  manufacture,  and  foreign 
glide  of  cotton,  within  the  period  ciiiefly  referred  to  m the  other  tables. 


[ Doc.  No.  146.  ] 


INTRODUCTORY  NOTES.  « 

uJ 

111  the  subsequent  tables  the  quantity  of  raw  cotton  has  been  compir.  | 
m pounds,  and  when  stated  in  the  weights  of  other  countries  by  the  autli<  | 
referred  to,  the  edition  (1831)  of  Kelly’s  Cambist  has  been  followed  ai  [ki 
guide  about  the  contents  of  the  kilogramme,  maud,  t icul,  &c.  The  pri<  | 
and  values,  when  found  in  the  denominations  of  foreign  currencies,  ha  p 
also  generally  been  reduced  to  dollars  and  cents,  conij  ting  the  pou  | 
sterling  at  $4  80;  and  the  statements  of  all  considerable  ^yiantities  a;  ^ 
amounts  have  usually  been  made  only  in  millions  and  large  i motions  | 
millions.  This  has  been  done  for  convenience  and  uniformity,  a w I 
supposed  to  be  sufficient,  if  not  better,  for  the  comparative  and  gener  | 
purposes  contemplated  in  the  original  formation  of  the  tables,  ' | 

xls  most  persons  in  conversation,  and  most  authors,  speak  of  bales,”  | 
bags,”  rather  than  pounds,  of  cotton,  whether  refering  to  the  crop,  tl  | 
inanufacture,  or  the  exports  and  imports  of  it,  some  further  explaiiatic  f> 
may  be  proper,  to  show  why  the  term  has  not  been  employed  in  the  stal  | 
meiits  contained  in  any  of  these  tables,  ^ 

It  was  early  discovered,  in  the  preparation  of  them,  that  many  contr  | 
dictions  and  errors  happened,  from  the  uncertain  quantity  indicated  I | 
different  persons  in  the  use  of  those  terms,  and  which  might  be  obviate  | 
by  always  making  the  statements  in  pounds,  and  giving  in  a note  tl  w 
amount  computed  to  be  contained  in  bales  and  bags  in  different  countrir  | 
so  that  the  pounds  could,  when  desirable,  be  converted  again  readily  in  : 
bales  or  bags.  By  pursuing  this  course  of  using  only  the  term  pounds,  tl  § 
great  object  of  comparison  between  the  quantities  of  cotton  grown  or  ma:  | 

ufactured  or  exported  at  different  periods,  and  in  different  countries,  con  | 
also  be  more  clearly  and  quickly  accomplished.  ||j 

In  illustration  of  these  remarks,  and  to  furnish  the  quantity  usually  co;  ijj 
tained  in  each  bale,  bag,  (fcc.  it  appears  that  in  1790  the  bale  or  bag  in  tl  | 
United  States  was  computed  at  only  200  pounds.  (See  Treasury  Eepoi  | 
15th  February,  1791.)  In  the  Atlantic  States  it  is  now  estimated  often  | 
300  and  325  pounds,  but  in  those  on  the  Gulf  of  Mexico,  at  400  and  4c  | 
pounds.  Those  used  at  Lowell  in  1831  contained,  on  an  average,  3(  | 

pounds  (Pitkin’s  Statistics,  page  527,  note.)  | 

At  Liverpool  the  Sea  Island  bale  was,  a few  years  ago,  estimated  at  2f  h 
pounds,  and  the  Upland  at  320  pounds.  The  bales  imported  into  Fran< 
•are  estimated  at  300  pounds  each,  by  Baines’s  History  of  Cotton,  page  52  | 

In  1824  all  the  bales  imported  into  Liverpool  averaged  266  pounds,  an  fj 
increased  yearly,  till  in  1832  they  weighed,  on  an  average,  319  pound  |j 
(McCulloch,  page  441).  Though  on  the  previous  page  he  considers  froi  -i 
300  to  310  pounds  a fair  average,  and  Burns,  cited  on  same  page,  makes  ll 
310  pounds  in  1832.  The  Egyptian  bale  contained  once  only  90  pound  p 
tlie  Brazilian  180  pounds;  (Pitk.  485;)  the  West  Indian  350  pounds;  ar  p 
the  Colombian  bale  or  quintal,  101  pounds.  (Cyclop,  of  Com.)  In  183:  1 

Burns  says  the  average  of  the  United  States  hale  or  bag  imported  in  j 
England,  was  345  pounds ; Brazilian  180  pounds;  Egyptian  220  poimdi  j| 
West  Indian 300  pounds;  East  Indian  330  pounds.  (See  McCulloch,  441  I 
The  amount  of  our  own  exports  does  not  depend  on  computations  froii  |j 
any  of  these  data,  but  on  the  actual  weight  in  pounds,  sworn  to  at  the  cu  ^ 
tom  house.  " 

I 


By  the  last  animal  report  of  tiie  Liverpool  market,  made  in  January, 

836,  it  appears  that  the  bales  have  so  altered  in  tlieir  quantity,  that  the 

stimate  of  the  present  bales  or  bags  is:  for  the  upland  321  pounds;  for 

)rleans  and  Alabama  402  pounds;  for  Sea  Island  322  pounds;  for  Brazil 

73  pounds;  for  Egyptian  218  pounds;  for  East  India 360 pounds;  and  for 

Jfest  India  230  pounds.  As  improvements  are  made  in  pressing  and 

hacking  closer,  to  save  something  in  the  expense  of  bagging  and  freight, 

me  constant  tendencv  has  been  here  to  increase  the  welo;ht  in,  a bale.. 

•1  ^ ^ 


[ Doc.  No.  146.  ] 


7 


A. 

COTTON,  RAW. 


Crop  of  cotton  grown  in — [1] 


The  4Torld. 

United  Slates. 

Evazil. 

"West  Indies. 

j 

Rest  of  Africa. 

1 

India.  i 

Rest  of  Asia.  ; 

Mexico  and  >S. 
America,  ex- 
cept Brazil. 

1 j 

; i 

a 

lbs. 

lbs. 

lbs. 

lbs. 

lbs.  i 

lbs. 

lbs. 

lbs. 

lbs. 

Ins. 

Millions. 

Millions. 

Millions. 

Millions. 

Millions.  MilEns. 

Mill’ns. 

Milfns. 

Millions. 

Miln7o’ 

1789 

„ 

1 

1790 

„ 

14 

1791 

490 

2 

22 

12 

46 

130 

190 

68 

1792 

[3] 

3 

1793 

5 

1794 

_ 

8 

1795 

_ 

8 

1795 

_ 

10 

1797 

_ 

11 

1798 

_ 

15 

1799 

20 

1800 

_ 

35 

1801 

520 

48 

36 

10 

_ 

15 

160 

160 

56 

15 

1801 

_ 

55 

1803 

_ 

60 

1801 

_ 

65 

1805 

_ 

70 

1805 

_ 

80 

1807 

_ 

80 

1808 

75 

1809 

_ 

82 

1810 

85 

1811 

555 

80 

35 

12 

] 

44 

170 

146 

57 

n 

1812 

[3j 

75 

1813 

75 

1814  i 

- 

70 

1815 

1 - 

100 

1816 

124 

1817 

130 

1818 

125 

18!  9 

j 

167 

1820 

1 

160 

1821 

630 

180 

32 

10 

G 

40 

175 

13.5 

44 

8 

18-22 

210 

1823 

' 

185 

1824 

i 

215 

1825 

255 

1826 

i 

3.50 

1327 

270 

1828 

• 

325 

1829 

! 

365 

1830 

1 

350 

1831 

1 820 

385 

38 

9 

18 

36 

180 

115 

35 

■ 4 

1832 

390 

1 833 

: 

415 

1831 

1 900 

460 

30 

8 

251 

34 

185 

110 

35 

13 

1835 

i 

[12] 

i 

[4] 

[5] 

[6] 

[R 

[8] 

[9] 

j [10] 

1 [ii'i 

s 


[ Doc.  No.  146.  ] 

[1.]  it  will  be  seen  by  the  phraseology  adopted,  that  the  crop  given  against 
each  year  is  tliat  grown,  and  not  that  brought  to  market  in  the  year,  and 
that  the  year  meant  in  tlie  table  is  the  calendar,  and  not  the  fiscal  year. 
'Fhis  course  has  been  pursued  as  more  appropriate  when  applied  to  the 
raising  of  a crop ; but  in  selling  it,  the  crop  of  1835,’’  for  example,  is 
often  spoken  of  by  others  when  that,  which  grew  in  1834,  is  the  crop 
alluded  to.  This  explanation  will  enable  all  to  make  their  comparisons 
m the  mode  most  convenient  to  them,  and  will  remove  some  apparent  con- 
iradictions  between  certain  authors. 

[2,]  In  forming  an  estimate  of  the  whole  crop  of  cotton  grov/n  in  the 
world  in  any  particular  year,  I have  found  no  precedent  to  aid  me  except 
for  tlie  single  year  of  1834,  when  evidence  -was  given  before  the  Chamber  oi 
Peers,  in  I'rance,  that  it  probably  amounted  to  about  460  millions  of  pounds. 
But  this  computation  was  so  deficient,  assigning  none  to  Mexico,  and  none 
to  S.  America,  or  Africa,  except  to  Brazil  24  millions  of  pounds,  and  to  Egypt 
20  millions  of  pounds,  and  only  60  millions  of  pounds  to  India,  and  350  mil- 
lions of  pounds  to  the  United  States,  and  the  balance  of  6 millions  of  pounds 
to  the  A¥est  Indies,  that  no  safe  reliance  could  be  placed  on  it  as  correct  for 
the  wdiole  known  world.  My  own  course  has  been  to  ascertain  from  all 
attainable  sources  the  exports  in  raw  cotton  of  each  country ; to  add  to 
those  the  probable  amount  consumed  at  home  and  not  exported,  looking  to 
the  climate  of  the  place,  the  habits  of  its  population,  and  the  scattered 
facts  on  this  point  found  in  respectable  authors,  and  then  to  compute 
therefrom  the  whole  quantity  grown.  Another  general  test  of  the  correct- 
ness of  one  of  my  conclusions,  viz : that  the  whole  crop  in  the  woi'ld  has 
quite  doubled  in  the  last  half  century,  and  now  equals  quite  900  millions  of 
pounds,  though  the  estimate  before  named  is  only  460  millions  of  pounds, 
exists  in  the  fixct  that  a greater  increase  than  this  has  happened  in  tlie 
<n‘op  of  the  United  States  alone  ; and  though, nil  some  other  countries,  a 
diminution  has  occurred  in  the  exports  of  cotton  from  various  causes,  which, 
need  not  here  be  detailed,  yet  the  use  of  it  has  probably  been  reduced 
in  no  country,  and  in  many,  within  that  period,  it  has,  from  greater  cheap- 
ness, by  improvements  in  machinery  and  steam,  with  its  healthfulness,  com- 
[lared  with  other  clothing,  largely  increased,  and  in  some  been  for  the  first 
time  introduced.  Supposing  that  in  warm  climates,  and  in  a population 
not  highly  civilized  as  in  Turkey,  tv/o  pounds  of  cotton  per  head  for  eaclr 
person  are  yearly  consumed,  (see  Urquhart  on  Turkey,  page  150)  and  in  the 
south  of  China  and  India,  not  over  one  and  a half  pounds  to  each  person, 
and  in  the  places  near  or  under  the  equator  still  less ; and  that  in  more 
civilized  countries  where  cotton  is  used,  as  in  England,  France,  and  the 
United  States,  from  eight  to  twelve  pounds  per  head  are  consumed;  and  sup- 
irosing  that  only  a little  more  than  half  the  population  of  the  globe,  estimated 
a,t  four  hundred  and  fifty  millions,  use  cotton,  the  consumption  would,  on  an 
average,  at  only  two  pounds  per  head,  be  quite  equal  to  the  estimated  crop  for 
the  whole  world.  For  some  years  past  it  is  supposed  that  the  consumption  of 
cntton  has  been  greater  than  the  crop,  and  hence,  that  the  old  stocks  on  hands 
have  been  more  exhausted,  and  a larger  portion  of  the  new  crop  called  for 
early  (see  table  I).  This  has  sustained  the  price  and  required  an 
augmented  crop  of  at  least  20  millions  of  pounds  per  annum.  See  posty 
and  Evidence  before  the  French  Chambers,  February,  1835. 


9 


[ Boc.  No.  146.  ] 

[3.]  The  crop  as  well  as  the  export  of  cotton  of  the  United  States,  from 
1809  to  1815,  was  sensibly  diminished  by  means  of  our  commercial  restric- 
tions and  war,  and  the  crop  of  other  countries  was  increased  to  supply  the 
place  of  ours  in  foreign  consumption.  Our  crop  has  been  estimated  with 
more  care,  and  from  better  data,  than  the  crop  -of  other  portions  of  the 
world.  From  1821  to  1834  it  has  been  estimated  by  others  much  lower 
than  in  the  table  and  as  follows: 


Years. 

MiWs  of  lbs. 

Years. 

MiWs  of  lbs. 

1821 

- 

Ill 

1828 

- 

213| 

1822 

- 

1214 

1829 

- 

255|- 

1823 

136^ 

1830 

292 

1824 

1325 

- 

152| 

169f 

1831 

1832 

- 

311f 

2964 

1826 

- 

211f 

1833 

- 

360 

1827 

- 

285 

1834 

- 

320-4 

Tlie  above  is  from  Marsfiall’s  tables  on  the  trade,  manufectures,  &c.  of 
England,  page  110.  In  McCulloch’s  Commercial  Dictionary,  page  434, 
lleuss’  tables,  page  270,  and  Baipes’s  History  of  Cotton,  page  303,  similar 
statements  are  made,  but  they  are  manifestly  too  low,  as  being  often  less  in 
quantity  than  our  exports : and  tlie^^  may  difler  occasionally  from  being 
founded  on  the  exports  of  a particular  year,  as  1825,  and  which  were 
dheliy  made  up  of  the  smaller  crop  grown  in  a previous  year,  as  in  1824. 
They  are  incorrect  even  then,  as  our  crop  for  many  calendar  years  has  been 
ifom  50  to  90  millions  of  pounds  more  than  the  exports  of  each  suc- 
ceeding fiscal  year ; this  last  being  composed  of  the  growth  of  the  pre- 
vious calendar  year,  with  a small  portion  oi’  it  brouglit  to  market  from 
the  1st  of  August  to  the  1st  of  October,  omitted,  and  a like  portion 
of  the  subsequent  calendar  year  included.  The  50  to  90  millions  of 
pounds  are  the  quantity  consumed  at  home,  and  which  quantity  lessens 
in  amount  as  we  go  bfick  to  the  periods  when  our  manufactures  were 
fewer,  and  when  we'  consumed  in  them  some  cotton  ot  foreign  growth. 
See  another  estimate  in  tlie  3d  volume  of  tlie  Parliamentary  Reports, 
(1833)  page  89.  Another  difference  may  arise  from  the  bale  made  up  here, 
being  abroad  computed  often  at  only  300  pounds,  (see  on  this  ante  and 
post).  The  crop  in  the  United  States  in  1834,  was  injured  in  the  northern 
parts  of  the  cotton  growing  States ; but  so  much  new  land  was  put  into 
cultivation,  that  the  whole  exports  were  a little  larger,  and  the  home  con- 
sumption is  presumed  also  to  have  been  more.  The  crop  for  the  year 
1835,  has  likewise  been  more  seriously  injured  in  the  same  quarters  ; but 
tire  exports  of  it  since  September,  have,  from  early  ripening,  high  prices, 
doc.  been  larger  than  either  of  the  two  previous  years,  and  some  think  the 
wliole  crop  was  larger,  while  it  is  believed  by  a few  that  the  whole  crop  will 
turn  out  to  be  soinewliat  less,  though  not  so  much  as  apprehended,  the  in- 
crease of  lands  in  cultivation  has  been  so  great.  February  17,1  1836, 
the  exports  ascertained,  on  the  Atlantic,  had  been  377,420  bags;  but  to  same 
time  in  1835,  only  340,379:  and  in  1834,  only  309,976.  For  a view  of  our 
power  in  the  United  States  to  grow  more  cotton,  see  table  B,  note  [2]. 

[4.]  Trie  crop  of  Brazil  is  computed  on  its  ascertained  exports  at  dif- 
ferent periods  to  England  and  elsewhere,  and  a home  consumption  in 
a small  ratio  to  its  population.  (See  table  on  exports.)  It  lias  been 


10 


[ Doc.  No.  146.  J 

diminished  of  late  years  by  importing  cotton  manufacUires  for  home  coi3  ■ 
S'Limption,  as  in  1833  and  ’4,  from  England  largely.  See  tables  N and  O, 
and  notes,  and  Pitkin,  384  and  ’5,  where  are  more  details.  Cotton  was 
lirst  planted  or  cultivated  in  Brazil  in  1781,  for  exportation.  Smithersrs 
History  of  Liverpool. 

[5j  The  crop  of  the  West  Indies  is  estimated  in  a similar  ]nanner ; after 
deducting  from  their  exports  the  probable  portion  of  cotton  brought  tliere 
from  the  Spanish  Main,  and  thence  re-exported.  In  1812,  it  is  said,  that 
the  crop  of  all  the  West  Indies  did  not  exceed  54  millions,  (Colqulioim 
»378;)  and  chieliy  in  Barbadoes,  Bahama  islands,  Dominico,  and  Granada  : 
4 Humbolt’s  Per.  Nar.  123  to  fo,  and  notes.  But  this  is  believed  to  have 
been  underrated.  England  now  exports  there  largely  of  cotton  manufac- 
tures. See  1833  and  1834,  table  N,  and  notes:  and  the  United  States 
export  there  some  of  them  yearly,  as  well  as  France.  All  this  tends  to 
diminish  the  crop  raised  for  home  consumption,  and  probaldy  that  for 
export.  See  exports  of  Mfts.  table  O.  Cotton  was  grown  lirst  in  i776,  at  St. 
Domingo,  for  export.  2 v.  Hist,  of  Colom.  But  earlier  in  other  islands,  and 
the^r  furnished  a large  part  of  tlnglish  wants  before  1785  ; Edin.  Cyclop. 
Art.  “Cotton.”  In  1789,  Hayti,  alone,  exported  over  7 millions  of  pounds: 
about  21  millions  of  pounds  in  1801.  and  since  that,  less  than  1 jiiillion  of 
pounds  yearly.  See  a table  in  McCuHoch,  926.  in  1824,  a little  over  1 mil- 
lion of  pounds,  and  in  1832  about  l .\  million.  See  McCulloch,  927. 

[6]  The  supposed  crop  of  Egypt,  m former  years,  is  predicated  on  tljc 
authority  of  the  Dictionary  of  Spanish  Commerce  and  Finance,  vol.  3,  page 
29.  On  her  exports,  (see  exports)  and  for  1834,  the  New  Monthly  Maga- 
zine for  September,  1835.  She  imported  cotton  from  Smyrna  and  Greece 
till  Within  twenty  years.  See  below  note  9th.  By  the  last  advices  her 
crop  grown,  in  1835,  is  said  to  be  short,  not  exceeding  18  or  20  millions  of 
pounds. 

[7]  The  crop  of  the  rest  of  Africa  is  computed  from  her  exports  from 
Morocco,  Gambia,  &c.  and  the  habits  and  number  of  tier  population,  and 
her  soil  and  climate,  where  cotton  is  indigenous,  and  has  always  been 
grown  in  many  sections  since  lirst  discovered.  McCullocli,  Die.  436. 
Of  late  she  imports  oii  tlie  eastern  side  fewer  cotton  goods  from  India,  and 
more  there  and  on  the  western  side  from  England  and  tl]e  United  States, 
See  for  1833  and  ’4,  from  Eng.  table  N,  and  notes.  See  exports  from  the 
United  States,  table  O.  In  the  island  of  Mauritius,  in  1806,  nearly  two 
millions  of  pounds  of  cotton  were  raised,  but  it  fell  off  gradually  till  in 
1831,  little  or  none  was  produced.  4 Montgomery's  History  of  British 
Col.  page  ,209.  See  table  N,  note  [10.] 

[8]  In  India,  die  estimate  rests  on  her  exports  and  vast  population,  loiiir 
clothed  chiefly  in  cotton  of  her  own  growth.  McCulloch,  Die.  437.  The 
Isle  of  Bourbon  produced  it  of  a quality  almost  equal  to  the  Sea  Island. 
London  Cyclop.  Art.  “ Cotton.”  See  her  exports.  Table  D.  But  of  late 
years  lier  exports  of  manufactured  goods  liave  declined,  and  her  importa- 
tions of  them  from  England  alone,  exceed  $TO,000,000  yearly.  See 
exports  of  manufactures  from  England  and  the  United  States,  table  N and 
O,  and  evidence  on  the  East  India  Company,  1832.  appendix,  page  287: 


[ Doc.  No.  146.  ] 


11 


find  on  the  g-rowth  and  use  of  cotton  in  tfie  islands  of  the  Archi- 

pelago, see  1 Crawford,  History'',  177,  207,  and  449 : 2 /;"^4\vford,  350. 
It  is  believed,  that  the  cultivation  of  cotton  for  export  i?  on  the  increase; 
labor  is  so  low,  and  the  trade  of  India  having  becon-e  more  tree.  The 
estimates  tor  tlie  crop  in  India  are  probably  not  high  enough,  rather  than 
being  too  large.  See  exports,  table  E and  1^,  and  supplement  to  Cy^clop. 
Brlttan.  ^Tfotton.” 

[9]  Idle  rest  of  Asia,  including  China,  Japan,  Persia,  Arabia  and 
Turkey,  from  the  mildness  of  its'  climate,  great  population,  and  cus- 
tomary clothing,  is  supposed  not  to  be  computed  too  jiigli.  In  1766,  it  was 
grown  miicli  about  Smyrna.  See  Postlethwait’s  Dictionary,  ‘-(Jotton.'’ 
Only  about  6 millions  of  pounds  in  1834,  near  Smyrna,  and  most  of  that 
was  shipped  to  Marseilles  and  Trieste.  McCullocli,  page  1069. 

The  cultivation  of  cotton,  in  China,  began  about  the  13th  century,  lor 
purposes  of  manufacture,  though  before  raised  in  gardens  for  ornament. 
The  crop  increased  rapidly,  and  was  very  large,  probably  much  beyond 
the  amount  assigned  in  this  column,  till  1785  to  1790,  when  it  began  to  be 
considerably  discontinued  for  the  purpose  of  raising  grain,  during  and  in 
consequence  of  famine.  Much  iias  since  been  imported  from  India,  though 
now  in  the  small  statistical  knowledge  attainable  on  this  point  as  to 
(Jhina,  she  may  raise  more  cotton  than  the  large  amount  computed  for 
her,  in  connection  witli  Japan,  Cochin-China,  (fee.  Supplement  to  Cyclop. 
Brit.  ” Cotton."'  See  exports  of  raw  cotton,  table  1).  Travellers  and 
merchants  see  but  little  of  China  usually,  except  the  soutli  parts  and  the 
sea  board;  and  if  in  the  great  use  of  silk,  furs,  (fee.  in  tlie  colder  portions, 
it  is  considered  that  100  millions  of  her  population  use  cotton,  and  from 
their  poverty^  only  14  pounds  each,  the  whole  amount  would  be  150  mil- 
lions of  pounds  ymarly  in  China  alone. 

[10]  This  crop  in  South  America  and  Mexico  rests  on  similar  principles, 
as  the  chief  clothing  was  cotton  when  the  country  was  first  discovered  by^' 
the  Spaniards.  It  is  now  often  of  superior  qualityn  (See  Humboldfs  Per. 
Nar.  page  202.)  The  exports  since  have  been  considerable.  (See  exports.) 
But  of  late  yrears  the  crop  must  be  less,  as  Mexico,  a^s  well  as  Peru  and  Chili 
imports  now  from  England  y^'early  many  cottons,  besides  what  they  get 
from  the  United  States  and  elsewhere.  (See  exports  of  manufactures.) 
Cotton  began  to  be  cultivated  for  export  in  Caraccas  in  1782.  The  saw  gin 
is  not  yet  used,  but  wooden  rollers.  2 Hist,  of  Colomb.  The  plant  is 
found  indigenous,  (Mollierh  travels  in  Colombia,  page  12h,  4 Humb.  Per. 
N.  123.)  In  Halfs  Columbia,  page  27,  it  is  said  only^  about  4 millions 
of  pounds  are  grown  in  that  Government  ■y’^earlyx  This  is  too  small  an 
amount.  Cultivated  in  Surinam  since  1735.  Smithers’s  Hist. of  Liverpool, 
page  131. 

[11]  This  column  includes  some  remote  islands,  and  the  south  of  Spain, 
Italy  and  Greece,  and  their  islands,  with  the  Canaries,  where  cotton  was 
former^  more  raised,  and  still  is  considerably.  See  as  to  Spain  and  Italy, 
2 Chaptal  on  French  industry,  page  6.  From  Italy  and  Egypt,  in  1825, 
when  cotion  was  very  high,  over  23|-  millions  of  pounds  were  exported. 
McCulloch,  949.  Some  has  been  raised  in  New  South  Wales.  McCul- 
loch, Diet,  of  Com.  436 : Smithers's  Hist,  of  Liverpool,  page  126 ; and  the 
cultivation  is  said  to  be  resumed  in  Itahu  Though  some  exports  were 


12 


[ Doc.  No.  146.  ] 


formei-xj  described  as  from  Portii2:al,  little  or  no  cotton  grew  there  ; ai 


the  exports  thence  came  chiefly  from  Brazil. 


[12]  Some  cofl^ision  has  arisen  from  the  diflerent  use  or  application 
the  word  ■•cotton.\  It  is  said  to  be  a word  of  Arabic  origin  (Smither 
History  of  Liv.  115)\but  the  application  sometimes  of  the  word  “ linen | 
and  at  others  of  the\ord  ‘Avoollen,”  to  the  vegetable  of  three  or  foi| 
general  varieties,  and  which  produces  the  wool  or  down  now  called  “ co 
ton,”  has  led  to  some  mistakes  about  its  growth  and  use  formerly  in  certai 
countries,  which  it  is  now  difficult  to  correct.  McCulloch’s  Diet,  of  Con 
436  and  ’8.  Baines,  287  and  ’96,  note  66.  But  it  was  probably  grow 
and  used  largely  in  ancient  times  in  Arabia,  as  well  as  India,  Americ: 
and  Africa,  except  perhaps  ' in  Egypt,  where  linen,  it  is  supposed,  chiefli 
superseded  it,  and  can  now  be  detected,  but  no  cotton,  in  the  clothinsf  ( 


the  mummies,  by  the  joints  in  the  fibres  of  the  stalk  of  the  flax,  bein 


visible  with  a microscope,  whereas  the  fibres  of  cotton  from  the  pod  hav 
no  joints.  See  Thompson’s  paper  in  Baines’s  appendix.  London  Cyclopjra 
article  “Cotton,”  contra.  The  kind  of  cotton  chiefly  cultivated  nowa  ami 
especially  in  the  United  States,  is  not  the  tree  or  shrub,  but  the  annua, 
and  herbaceous  varieties.  London  Cyclop,  art.  “Cotton.” 


13 


[ Doc.  No.  146.  ] 
B. 

COTTON,  RAW. 


Crop  of  coUoii  grown  in — [1] — [2] 


up 

^90 


91 

792 

93 

94 


79(5 

797 

798 

799 

800 
801 
802 

803 

804 

805 
805 

807 

808 
:809 
^10 
'811 
812 

813 

814 

815 
81(5 
817 
•il8 
'819 
^820 
821 
822 

823 

824 

825 
®2() 
827 
328 
[82!) 

830 

831 

832 
S33 

834 

835 

ro 


Virginia. 

North  Carolina. 

South  Carolina. 

Georgia. 

ci 

Ti 

o 

s 

Alabama.  | 

Tennessee. 

lbs. 

lbs. 

lbs. 

bs. 

lbs. 

lbs. 

lbs. 

Millions. 

Millions. 

Millions, 

1 

Millions. 

Millions. 

I 

Mill’ns. 

1 

Mill'ns.| 

] 

5 ! 

•1 

20 

1 

1 

! 

i 

1 

10  1 

- 

- 

1 1 

8 

1 

7 

40 

1 

20 

- 

I 

! 

! 

1 _ 

1 

1 

1 

i 

1 

i 

1 

i 

! 

10 

1 

1 

1 50 

i 

1 

45 

1 - 
1 
1 

1 

! 

i 20 

1 

20  1 

i 

1 

i'‘ 

i 25 

I 

i 

. 18 

1 

i 

79 

75 

1 2 

1 

[ « 

45  i 

1 

1 n 

i - 

' 10 

t 

' 

88  ■ 

1 

t 15 

i 

1 

1 

j 

50  i 

1 lU 

i 9i 

^ 65i 

! 

i 

• [31 

75 

: 20 

1 

i 

i 

1 

j ; 

1 

45 

lbs 


lbs. 


lbs. 


Mill’ns.lMiirn. 


62 


10  i 


38  1 


14 


[ Doc.  No.  146.  ] 

[1]  I have  not  been  able  to  find  any  official  returns  of  either  the  General 
or  the  State  Governments,  which  give  the  crops  of  cotton  in  each  State,  i 
The  present  table  has,  therefore,  been  compiled  from  the  best  data  in  my 
power:  suck  as  the  foreign  exports  of  cotton  from  each  State,  the  exports 
coastwise,  the  cpiantity  supposed  to  be  exported  from  each  not  pj'own 
within  its  limits,  and  the  amount  yearly  consumed  within  its  limits. 
Many  mistakes  are  made  abroad,  and  some  at  home,  by  considering'  all  ' 
the  exports,  of  eacli  State  as  its  own  crop,  or  by  coiijpiiti ng  the  whole 
foreign  exports  as  the  whole  crop,  or  by  estimating  ail  the  bales  in  the 
United  States  alike,  and  only  at  300  pounds  on  an  average.  See  such 
mistakes  in  Reuss’s  Tables  on  American  Trade,  270  ; and  Parliamentary 
Evidence  on  Manuffictures,  A.  D.  1832, 

But  it  is  well  known  in  this  country,  that  the  exports  from  New  Orleans, 
both  foreign  and  domestic,  are  composed  in  part  of  tlie  crops  of  Louisiana, 
Arkansas,  Tennessee,  Mississippi,  and  Alabama.  Part  of  the  crops  in  each 
of  those  States  is  consumed  at  home,  part  is  exported  coastwise  to  the 
northern  States,  and  the  crops  of  tlie  southwestern  portion  of  Mississippi,  and 
ihe  southern  portion  of  Alabama,  are  chiefly  exported  from  Mobile.  In 
addition  to  some  of  the  aiiove  remarks,  applicable  to  the  other  cotton 
growing  States,  it  is  proper  to  add,  that  part  of  the  crop  of  Georgia  is  ex- 
ported from  Florida,  and  part  from  South  Carolina:  part  of  Florida  from  ! 
Alabama;  and  part  of  North  Carolina  from  Tirginia.  i 

For  an  explanation  of  some  of  the  iinctnations  in  our  exports  in  certain  i 
years,  see  table  A,  note  [3]. 

[2]  From  data  given  under  the  head  of  “ Cajiital,’’  in  table  C,  note  [3j,  it  j 
will  be  seen  that,  in  producing  the  whole  cotton  crop  of  the  United  i 
States,  only  about  two  millions  of  acres  of  land  are  cultivated.  In  table  I)  | 
it  appears  that  all  the  foreign  exports  of  cotton  in  the  world  do  not  probably  ' 
exceed  535  millions  of  pounds,  and  of  which  the  United  States  now  export  ■ 
about  3S4  millions  of  pounds ; a large  portion  of  the  residue  is  from  the  : 
remotest  parts  of  Asia,  very  little  of  it  now  coming  to  Europe.  But  if  ne-  | 
cessary  or  profitable,  we  could  raise  tlie  whole  of  the  other  150  millions,  by  ! 
putting  into  cultivation  only  about  500,000  acres  more  cotton  land,  am!  ; 
employing  less  than  100,000  more  field  lie.nds  in  tliis  branch  of  industry. 

But  supposing  that  Asia,  from  her  distance  and  habits,  continues  to  use  | 
chiefly  her  own  raw  cotton,  that  the  increase  of  pojuilation  in  the  Finited  I' 
States  should  continue  much  as  heretofore,  and  that  the  countries  in  Europe 
and  elsewhere,  now  supplied  rv itli  cotton  mamifact’ures  made  chiefly  from 
our  crops,  should  increase  in  popvdation,  or  in  the  use  of  cotton,  as  fast 
as  the  United  States  does  in  population  alone,  and  there  would  he  required 
to  supply  the  increased  annual  demand  only  about  21  millions  of  pounds  | 
more  of  raw  cotton,  or  the  product  in  the  Imited  States  of  less  than  70,000  i 
acres  more  each  year.  This  lias  been  nearly  our  average  increase  of  crops  1 
in  the  last  ten  years.  See  table  and  note  in  extract  trom  aiimial  Treasury  ^ 
report.  It  has  required  about  11,000  more  field  laborers  a year,  or  only 
^yth  the  annual  increase  of  our  Vv'hole  population.  But  we  probably  , 
hrwe  now,  not  in  cultivation,  more  acres  of  land  suitable  for  cotton,  than 
would  be  sufficient  to  raise  all  the  cotton  now  grown  in  the  world ; as  that 
would  require  only  three  to  five  millions  of  acres.  Hence  it  must  he  ob-  ; 
vioiis,  that  there  is  good  cotton  land  enough  in  the  United  States,  and  at  ; 
low  prices,  easily  to  grow,  not  only  all  the  cotton  wanted  tor  foreign  ex- 
port in  the  world,  but  to  supply  th(^  increased  demand  for  it.  probably,  for  ; 
ages.  The  omy  preventive,  ot  wbicii  there  is  much  likelihood,  seems  to  i 


15 


[ Doc.  No.  146.  ] 

!)e  in  the  augmented  price  of  such  labor  as  is  usually  devoted  to  this  cub 
ture  ; so  that  it  may  not  be  possible  to  raise  tlie  crop  at  so  low  a rate  as  to 
keep  possession  of  the  European  market  against  all  competition. 

In  getting  possession  of  that  market  so  lully  and  rapidly  heretofore,  (as 
shown  in  tlie  extracts  from  the  last  annual  report,)  the  United  States  liave 
l)een  much  aided  by  the  good  quality  of  their  cotton,  the  low  price  of  land, 
and  the  great  improvements  in  cleaning  cotton  by  Whitney’s  cotton  gin 
since  1793.  One  person  is  able  to  perform  with  it  in  a day  the  work  of 
1,000  without  it.  Cox’s  Digest  of  ManuEctures,  page  667;  Gales  and 
Seaton’s  documents,  2d  volume.  Besides  these  advantages,  the  unusual 
tndustr)-"  and  enterprise  of  our  population,  and  its  freedom  from  tax- 
ation compared  with  the  people  of  most  other  countries,  and  the  wide  ex- 
tvont  of  our  commerce,  have  promoted  our  unprecedented  progress.  Baines’s 
History,  301 : 5 Malle  Brun,  page  193. 

The  old  mode  of  cleaning  it  by  wooden  rollers,  and  witli  tlie  bow  by 
’nand,  is  still  used  in  India  and  Colombia,  and  it  is  there  sown  broad  cast 
instead  of  in  drills,  and  much  neglected  afterwards.  Baines  64 : see  3 
Crawford’s  History,  350. 

The  great  vibrations  in  tlie  prices  per  pound  of  raw  cotton  grown  in  the 
United  States,  are  very  striking,  as  exiiibited  in  table  C.  Tlie  imluence  of 
these  on  the  sales  of  public  land  and  our  revenue,  from  both  them  and  the 
imports  of  foreign  merchandise,  has  been  briefly  examined  in  the  last 
annual  report,  extracts  from  which  are  annexed.  The  further  influence  of 
these  on  the  prosperity  of  tlie  south,  on  the  rise  in  the  value  oi  their  slave 
property,  and  on  the  great  profits  yielded  by  all  their  capital  invested  in 
growing  cotmn,  must  be  very  apparent  to  every  carefld  obseiwcr.  The 
single  fact,  that  in  no  yeai'  has  the  price  been  but  a fraction  below  10  cents 
per  pound,  or  a rate  sufficient  to  yield  a fair  profit,  vdiile  it  has,  at  times 
ixieii  as  liigh  as  29,  34,  and  even  44,  and  been,  on  an  average,  over  16 
cents  per  poimd  since  1802,  and  over  21  since  1790,  is  probably  without  a 
jiarallel,  in  showing  a large  and  continued  profit.  Further  details  on  these 
and  similar  considerations  must  be  left  to  otlier  persons  and  other  occa- 
sions [See  table  C,  note  3.] 

[3]  In  South  Carolina,  Geoi'gia,  and  Florida,  tlie  Sea  Island  cotton, 
('supposed  to  have  come  originally  fi’om  Persia,,  and  in  1786  from  Bahama 
to  tlie  U]iited  States)  succeeds ; but  grows  there  to  perfection  only  in  cer- 
tain districts  near  the  seacoast.  During  the  last  30  years  the  avera«'e 
annual  crop  has  been  between  9 and  LI  million  pounds.  See  exports  and 
prices,  and  a table  in  Scybert,  152-3:  Smithers’s,  132.  But  the  quality  of 
a part  of  it  is  inferior.  McCulloch,  436.  It  ba,s  taken  tlie  place  in  Europe 
of  tlic  fme  cotton  from  the  isle  of  Bourbon,  frondoii  Cyclop,  article  -robt- 
ton,”  and  is  superior  to  that.  Supplement  to  Cyclop.  Brit,  ^-  cotton.” 

[•i]  Tlie  growth  of  cotton  in  tlie  United  States  began  as  early  as  1787 
even  of  the  sea  island,  and  of  other  kinds  earlier  still~in  small  quantities! 
McCulloch,  440,  says  it  began  soon  after  the  close  of  the  wai-  of  tlie  revo- 
liition,  though  not  exported  till  1790. 

T.  Cox,  cited  in  Rees’s  Cyclopedia,  in  article  United  States,”  says  cot- 
ton was  raised  here  in  gardens  fieforo  1786,  but  not  planters  jis  a crop, 
emd  before  1787  Ave  never  exported  a liale.  [He  means  of  our  oav.ii  mowtb. 
It  is  presumed.  See  table  F,  note  6.]  We  exported  a little  before  1787,  viz  : 
1785,  five  bags  ; and  in  1786  six  bags  ; whicfi  SmitJiers’s  History  of  UiAxir- 
pool,  page  129.  supposes  Avas  grown  here,  but  see  table  P.  note  9. 


16 


[ Doc.  No.  146.  ] 
C.— COTTON,  RAW. 


Crop  of  cotton  grown  in— [1] 


Prices  per  lb. 

Capital  employed  in  con- 
nection with  growing.  [3] 

Persons  employed 
ill  growing,  and 
dependent. 

Value  of  whole 
crop  in 

00 

</■ 

c/* 

I 

IV 

V 

1 

ci 

'c3 

c 

m 

'T3 

DQ 

q3 

03 

1 

C 

Tb 

V 

1 

C; 

Ph 

P 

V 

t 

\ 

y. 

0 

br. 

W 

H 

E 

1 ^ 

1 ^ 
K 

a 

a. 

>-* 

Gen's. 

Pence. 

Dollars, 

Dollars. 

Dollars. 

i Dollars. 

Dollars 

Millions. 

Millions. 

Millions. 

Millions. 

Millions. 

Millions. 

Mifons. 

1780 

12  to  22 

1700 

14^ 

12  to  21 

1791 

26 

13  to  30 

3? 

S3 

3 

1 

4 ! 

4Cj 

1790 

29 

20  to  30 

- U 

1793 

32 

13  to  22 

j 

1794 

33 

12  to  18 

1 

1795 

36,^ 

15  to  27 

1796 

36i 

12  to  29 

1797 

34 

12  to  37 

1798 

39 

22  lo  45 

1 

1799 

44 

17  to  60 

1800 

28 

1 6 to  36 

i 

1801 

44 

17  to  38 

80 

_ 

50 

I 

TTr 

3 

39i 

1802 

19 

12  to  38 

1 0 

8 1 

1803 

19 

8 to  15 

1801 

20 

10  to  18 

1 

1805 

23 

14  to  19 

1806 

22 

12  to  15 

1807 

2U 

10  to  14 

\ 

1808 

19 

9 to 

1809 

16 

10  to  18 

1810 

16 

10  to  19 

1811 

15i 

7 to  14 

134 

1 

f 0 

58 

J 

i 

12i 

37 

1812 

101 

11  to  14 

( 

1813 

12 

16  to  26 

i 

1814 

15 

28  av’rage 

1 

1815 

21 

20i  “ 

1816 

29'; 

18i  “ 

1817 

26 

20  ‘ ‘ 

! 

1818 

34 

20  “ 

1819 

24 

I3i  ‘ ‘ 

1820 

17 

lUr 

1 

I 

1821 

! 16 

! 300 

83 

i 

i 

291  i 

37 

1822 

! 161 

si  “ 

I 

i 

1823 

10&12 

8i  “ 

1 

1 

1 

182^1 

15 

8.^  “ 

I 

1 

1 

1 

1825 

21 

j 

1 

1826 

11 

6f  “ 

1 

1827 

i 9V 

6h  “ 

j 

1828 

1 Ol- 

61 “ 

1829 

io 

i 5!  “ 

! 

1830 

10 

6|  “ 

i 

1831 

9i 

5|  ‘ ‘ 

650 

30 

58 

3 

•1 

29i 

1832 

10 

6f  “ 

! 

1333 

i 11 

7§  “ 

1834 

i 13 

Si  “ 

_ 

_ 

76 

36r 

1835 

i 16i 

12i  “ 

80<J 

31 

50 

1 

4 to  i 

1 

i 

r 

I [2], 

i [3] 

1 

17 


[ Doc.  No.  146.  j 


[1]  From  1802  to  1826,  inclusive,  the  prices  for  the  United  States  are 
taken  from  Marshall’s  tables,  page  110.  Since  that  date,  from  official  re- 
turns. 

The  prices,  given  for  the  United  States,  are  those  at  the  places  of  ex- 
portation, and  are  the  average  during  the  year,  and  including  all  kinds  ot 
cotton : but  the  sea  island  cotton  is  worth  usually  two  hundred  and  fifty 
per  cent,  more  than  the  other  kinds  (see  below  in  note  2) ; and  formerly  the 
difference  was  still  greater,  when  the  amount  grown  elsewhere  was  not 
so  large.  The  price  of  cotton  for  1790  is  from  the  Treasury  report, 
15th  February,  1791.  The  prices  from  1791  to  1801,  inclusive,  are  from 
Almy  and  Brown’s  books  at  Providence,  deducting  one  cent  per  pound 
for  freight,  &c.  The  prices  of  raw  cotton  from  1789  to  1802,  in  the  United 
States,  fluctuated  largely,  and  are  quoted  somewhat  differently  in  some  of 
the  prices  current  during  those  years.  See  the  United  States  Gazette  and 
Pennsylvania  Mercury  for  that  period.  But  the  differences  are  not  great  if 
an  average  be  taken  for  the  whole  year. 

Where  rich  lands  and  labor  were  low,  as  in  Mississippi  and  Alabama  a 
few  years  ago,  two  cents  per  pound  for  cotton  in  the  seed,  or  eight  cents 
when  cleaned,  would  pay  expenses.  It  is  supposed  to  be  a profitable  crop 
in  the  southwestern  States  at  ten  cents  per  pound.  In  Baines’s  History 
of  Cotton,  page  316,  it  is  stated  that  the  planter  can  make  a profit  at  six 
cents  per  pound. 

In  India,  the  Bengal  cotton,  of  inferior  quality,  it  is  said,  can  be  raised 
for  three  cents  per  pound,  and  delivered  in  England  for  five  cents. 
■See  evidence  on  East  India  Company,  1832,  page  286,  appendix:  Smithers’s 
History  of  Liverpool,  116.  It  has  since  been  said,  that  it  will  cost  five 
cents  per  pound  to  deliver  it  on  the  wharves  at  Bombay.  It  sold  in  India, 
in  1831  and  1832,  at  eight  to  nine  cents  per  pound.  See  McCulloch’s 
Dictionary,  page  238.  In  1820,  in  3 Crawford’s  History,  351,  it  is  said  to 
bring  from  eight  to  nine  cents  in  the  Indian  islands. 

[2]  The  prices  in  England  are  given  in  pence,  as  they  are  so  much 
oftener  referred  to  in  that  form, but  can  easily  be  converted  into  cents;  esti- 
mating the  pound  sterling  at  ^4  80;  by  doubling  the  number  of  pence. 
They  are  generally  the  prices  at  Liverpool;  and  from  1793  to  1797,  and 
from  1799  to  1814,  are  from  Tooke  on  Prices,  page  11,  appendix;  and  are 
of  ‘‘‘  Georgia  bowed  cotton,”  without  the  duty.  The  rest,  except  from  1789 
to  1793,  and  1834  and  1835,  are  from  Marshall’s  tables,  page  114;  and 
Baines,  page  352-3 : differing  in  some  cases  a little,  and  in  Marshall  giving 
the  prices  of  each  kind  of  cotton  separately.  See  a table  in  Smithers’s 
History  of  Liverpool,  page  149.  Those  from  1789  to  1793  are  from  Baines, 
page  313,  and  are  of  West  India  cotton;  and  for  1834  and  1835,  the  Liver- 
pool reports  have  been  the  guide. 

As  an  illustration  of  the  difference  in  value  of  different  kinds  of  raw 
cotton,  I annex  a statement  of  their  prices  at  Liverpool,  June  16,  1835: 


d.  d. 


Uplands 
Orleans 
Alabama 
,Sea  Island 

Brazil 


from  10  to  12| 

“ 10  to  13 

“ 9f  to  12|; 
« 23  to  m 

13f  to  16 


18 


[ Doc.  No.  146.  ] 


Jurats  • 
Bengal 


d.  d. 

from  7 to 


Laguyra  - 
West  Indies 


U J1 

“ isl  to  14 
“ 12J  to  14J 


See  more  on  Prices  in  Edinburg  Keview,  427,  (1832.)  McCulloch,  page 
437,  441.  Tlie  linest  kinds  of  sea  island  often  bring  lour  times  as  much 
as  the  inferior  qualities.  McCulloch,  page  437.  In  1799  it  sold  in  Liver- 
pool for  five  shillings  per  pound.  Smilhers,  page  156.  At  Smyrna,  before 
1767,  the  price  appears  to  have  been  six  or  seven  cents  per  pound. 
Postlewait’s  Dictionary.  At  the  river  Gambia  the  price  per  poimd  is 
about  four  cents.  Montgomery's  Colonial  History.  In  Demarara  the 
price  (in  1815)  is  said  to  average  about  nine  to  ten  cents  per  pound.  Edin- 
burgh Encyclopedia,  article  ‘‘cotton.'’  In  Colombia  in  1822  the  price  per 
pound  was  about  the  same  as  in  the  United  States,  but  it  fluctuates  there 
and  in  other  Spanish  American  Governments  from  eight  to  fifteen  cents 
a pound,  with  the  quality  and  the  year.  See  Humboldt  and  Mollier’s 
Travels. 

[3]  Capital.  The  capital  employed  in  growing  cotton,  with  the  income 
it  yields,  is  a question  of  much  interest  and  iniportance.  But  very  little 
can  be  found  concerning  it  in  books,  and  the  information  obtained  on  it 
from  different  correspondents  in  the  United  States  is  defective,  and  is 
founded  on  quite  different  data  in  different  States  and  by  different  persons. 

The  elements  of  any  computation  mu&t  be,  the  average  cost  per  acre  of 
cotton  lands,  wild  or  cleared,  and  if  tlie  former,  the  expense  of  clearing  them  ; 
the  amount  of  labor  necessary  per  acre  to  produce  a given  quantity  of  raw 
cotton  ; the  cost  of  labor,  whether  in  the  form  of  wages  or  otherwise ; th« 
expense  of  tools,  horses,  &c.  with  salaries  of  overseer^.-,  taxes  paid,  &c.  Ax. 

One  mode  of  making  the  computation  is  as  follows : The  average  cost 
of  cotton  lands  when  wild,  in  the  old  States,  did  not  probably  exceed  often 
half  a dollar  per  acre,  including  fees  for  patents,  <fcc.  In  the  new  States  it 
has  generally  ranged  from  .|;1  25  to  .$20  00  per  acre,  depending  on  its 
quality,  location,  and  tise  price  of  cotton.  The  actual  settlers, "in  pur- 
chasing of  capitalists,  liave  generally  been  compelled  to  give  an  advance 
from  50  to  100  jm-  cent.;  some  times  much  more. 

The  ex|iense  of  clearing  wild  land  averages  from  ten  to  fi^een  dollars  per 
acre.  Land  in  a condition  to  be  cultivated,  will,  on  an  average,  in  the 
United  States,  yield  from  2501bs.  to  3001bs.  of  clean  ootton.  In  the  old 
iStates,  1251hs.  clean,  or  GOOlhs.  in  the  seed  is  an  ordinary  crop.  (Cooper’sr 
Polit.  Econ.  p.  9t>.)  Gox,  in  1810,  estimated  it  at  1381  bs,  and  others  at? 
1201bs.  (Rees's  C’yclop.  art.  “ United  States.”) 

It  is  lielieved,  that  one  ffeld  hand  or  laborer,  witli  the  aid  liereafter  named, 
can  cultivate,  on  an  uTerage,  eight  acras.  Some  say  fiye  to  seven,  and  others 
ten.  He  will  at  the  SiUhe  lime  assist  in  raising  five  to  eight  acres  of  corn. 

It  is  usual  to  employ  in  this  business  slav4‘.  labor,  and  the  next  element’ 
in  the  calculation  must  be  the  capital  invested  in  slaves  ibr  this  ])urpo?x, 
and  the  aimuki  cost  of  their  maintenance.  . . 

The  price  of  field  hands  has  nearly  or  quite  doubled  in  ten  years  ; and 
they  now  often  cost  eight  Imndred  or  one  thousand  dollars,  when  formerly 
four  and  five  hundred  dollars  were  the  usual  rate  each. 

The  maintenance  of  them  is  another  item  very  differently  computed, 
^metimes  it  is  done  by  tiie  purchase  of  more  land  and  cultivating  it,  put- 


19 


[ Doc.  No.  146  J 

ting  stock  on  it  of  cows,  sheep,  <fec.  so  as,  with  the  aid  of  other  slaves,  kept 
partly  for  that  purpose  and  partly  for  the  culture  of  cotton,  to  raise  corn^ 
pork,  <fec.  to  feed,  and  other  materials  to  clothe  the  wliole.  In  such  case 
the  additional  land  put  in  cultivation,  the  additional  slaves  bought,  and 
the  stock  on  the  plantation,  &c.  must  be  considered  as  so  much  more 
capital. 

The  additional  slaves  in  such  case,  being  more  youthful,  or  more  aged 
ones,  or  infirm  females,  may  be  fairly  computed  at  an  equal  number  with 
the  field  hands,  but  costing  only  about  half  the  price.  The  additional 
land  should  be  for  cultivation,  about  twenty  acres  for  each  field  hand. 
The  capital  in  oxen,  horses,  sheep,  tools  for  husbandry,  ^c.  about  thirty 
dollars  to  each  slave  on  the  plantation. 

To  these  must  be  added  the  capital  which  may  be  deemed  temporary, 
and  not  as  a permanent  investment,  and  hence  is  to  be  all  yearly  returned^ 
such  as  expense  for  extra  clothing  not  made  on  the  plantation,  formedicine^ 
overseers,  tools  for  labor,  taxes,  freight,  (fee.  which  may  be  forty-five  dollars 
to  each  slave. 

l^iffering  from  these  last  data,  in  some  respects,  in  substance,  and  wholly 
Unlike  in  form,  is  another  mode  of  computing  all  the  capital  invested  except 
that  in  the  mere  cotton  lands.  Instead  of  estimating  the  price  of  slave.s, 
(fee.  it  may  be  considered  that  slave  labor  could  be  hired,  with  food,  clothing, 
medicine,  (fee.  at  a cost  for  each  field  hand  from  one  hundred  to  one  hun- 
dred and  twenty  dollars  per  year.  That  from  thirty  to  forty  dollars  eacfi 
would  defray  the  annual  expense  of  overseers,  tools,  horses  for  each,  and 
that  the  additional  and  etpial  number  of  slaves,  not  prime  field  hands,, 
could  be  hired  and  supported  for  less  than  half  the  annual  cost  of  th« 
others. 

On  these  data  the  cotton  crop,  as  estimated  for  1835,  at  480  million  pounds, 
would  grow  on  1,600,000  acres  at  3001bs,  per  acre,  or  1,920,000  at  250ibs. 
each.  Considering  that  some  lands  wear  out  quick  and  are  changed,  pro- 
bably tlje  whole  quantity  cultivated  for  cotton  in  the  United  States,  at  thiiK' 
time,  should  be  estimated  at  two  millions  or  more  of  acre.s. 

From  the  above  elemonts  the  whole  capital  invested  in  growing  the  cotton 
crop  in  the  United  States  can  be  readily  computed.  On  one  hypothesis, 
converting  the  whole  capital  into  that  which  is  permanent,  and  partly 
invovsted  in  lands,  slaves,  imd  tools,  as  fixed  capital,  and  partly  invested  in 
bank  or  other  s-tocks,  or  in  loans  so  as  to  yield  an  income,  and  not  a capital 
sufficient  to  defray  those  kinds  of  expenses  which  are  usually  deemed  tem- 
jiorary,  and  are  yearly  remunerated,  or  require  what  is  called  a circu- 
lating or  floating  capital,  and*  the  whole  will  amount  to  more  than  9^0 
millions  of  dollars.  On  another  hypothesis,  considering  the  capital,  as  it 
generally  is,  divided  into  fixed  and  circulating ; tlie.  capital  as  fixed,  which 
£s  invested  in  lands,  slaves,  stocks  of  horses,  tools,  &c.  and  only  alxmt 
thirty  millions  of  dollars  lor  other  ex|jenses,  as  circulating  or  temporary, 
and  to  be  itself,  and  not  iLs  income  or  interest,  used  and  repaid  yearly,  and 
the  whole  capital  of  both  kinds  will  not  quite  equal  800  million  dollars. 

This  lo.st  aniou  ut  accords  nearly  with  a still  different  mode  of  testing: 
the  qiiaiitity  of  capital,  by  supposing  that  the  whole  crop  of  480  million 
pounds,  at  ten  cents  per  pound,  tSing  48  million  dollars,  would  yield  six 
per  cent,  .on  ail  tlie  money  invested  in  any  way  in  raising  the  crop:  If  tfw 

<!apital  used  was  all  permanently  invested,  it  would,  on  this  hypothesig. 
mnomU  to  near  800  million  dollars ; but  as  from  25  to  30  million  dollars  is 


[ Doc.  No.  146.  ] 

temperariiy  invested,  and  must  itself  be  repaid  yearly,  the  whole  may,  in 
the  usual  mode  of  treating  of  capital  employed  in  such  business,  be  con^ 
sidered  rather  under  than  over  800  million  dollars. 

That  amount,  however,  has  been  assumed  as  about  correct,  in  the  table, 
and  is  near  enough  for  the  estimate  and  comparisons  at  different  periods  in 
this  country,  and  at  the  same  period  between  this  and  other  countries.  In 
others,  as  in  India,  Brazil,  and  Egypt,  the  cost  of  labor  is  less,  and  perhaps 
the  value  of  land,  though  the  latter  is  doubtful ; and  the  crop  per  acre,  and 
the  amount  of  labor  performed  by  each  hand,  is  believed  to  be  less,  inde- 
pendent of  the  failure  there  to  use  much  the  improved  cotton  gin. 

Here,  at  250  pounds  per  acre  as  an  average  crop,  and  eight  acres  an 
average  cultivation  by  one  hand,  the  product  would  be  2,000  pounds  per 
hand,  or  at  ten  cents  per  pound,  would  be  the  average  of  two  hundred 
dollars  per  field  hand.  All  the  planter  obtains  over  ten  cents  per  pound 
would  yield  him  a large  rate  of  interest  above  6 per  cent,  to  pay  for  the 
greater  risk  and  uncertainty  of  capital  invested  in  this  species  of  property. 
(See  table  B,  note  2.)  The  whole  crop  of  1834  was  probably  worth  75 
million  dollars  at  the  actual  market  prices,  though  at  10  cents  per  pound 
only  48  millions. 

It  is  difficult  to  institute  any  just  comparison  between  the  profits  of  capital 
invested  here  in  the  growing  of  cotton,  and  in  the  manufacture  of  it  ; as 
in  the  latter  so  much  more  in  proportion  is  invested  in  temporary  or  circu- 
lating capital  to  pay  for  wages  and  stock,  and  the  whole  of  which  is  to  be 
annually  repaid.  Neither  have  I leisure  for  the  details. 

Indeed  it  might  have  comported  better  with  the  technical  language  of 
political  economy  to  have  divided  the  whole  expenditures  in  raising  cotton 
into  three  heads,  viz:  labor,  capital  and  land;  to  yield  in  return,  wages  for 
the  labor,  profit  or  interest  on  the  capital,  and  rent  for  the  land.  (See 
Senior’s  Outline  of  Political  Economy,  page  165,  from  the  Encyclopedia 
Metropolitana.)  It  will  be  easy,  for  those  who  prefer  it,  to  throw  the  calcu- 
lation into  that  form;  but  the  results  then,  would  not  be  such  as  accord 
best  with  the  views  proposed  in  this  part  of  the  table  C ; which  are,  to  pre- 
sent to  the  community  here,  in  plain  terms,  and  in  a form  as  intelligible  as 
possible  to  people  at  large,  tlie  amount  of  capital  actually  employed  at 
different  periods  in  growing  the  cotton  crop  in  the  United  States;  whether 
invested  in  the  original  purchase  of  lands,  the  clearing,  or  the  culture  of 
them ; in  the  purchase  of  slaves,  or  in  procuring  an  income  for  the  pay- 
ment, or  in  the  actual  payment  of  wages  of  free  labor  to  raise  the  crop ; 
for  buying  seed,  tools,  food,  raiment,  horses,  (fee.  and  for  payment  of  taxes, 
overseers,  or  any  other  expense,  incidental  or  direct,  connected  with  the 
production  of  the  crop. 

Two  brief  statements  of  a very  general  character  are  subjoined,  in  illus- 
tration of  some  of  the  above  remarks. 

1st.  The  capital  invested  in  cotton  lands  under  cultivation,  at  two  million 
acres,  and  worth  cleared,  on  an  average,  ^20  per  acre,  is  - $40,000,000 

The  capital  in  field  hands,  and  in  other  lands,  stock,  labor, 

(fee.  to  feed  and  clothe  them,  at  $100  per  year,  on  340,000 
in  numb«r,  would  require  the  interest  or  income  of  a 
capital,  at  six  per  cent,  of  - - . , 544.000,000 

The  maintenance  of  340,000  more  assistants,  6cc,  at  $30 
each  per  year,  would  require  the  income  of  a capital  at 
»ix  per  cant,  of  167.000,000 


[ Doc.  No.  146.  ] 


21 


Amount  carried  over  - - - - - .f 75 f, 000, 060 

Th6  capital  to  Bupply  enough  interest  or  income  to  pay  for 
tools,  horses  for  ploughing  cotton,  taxes,  medicines,  over- 
seers, <fec.  at  $30,  for  the  first  346,000,  would  be  - - 167,000,000 

Making  in  all  a permanent  capital,  if  so  used,  equal  to  $918,000,000 


2d.  The  capital  in  cotton  lands,  as  stated  above 
Capital  in  the  purchase  of  340,000  field  hands,  at  $800  each, 
on  an  average  ------ 

Capital  in  the  other  340,000  to  aid,  and  to  raise  food,  clothing, 
(fee.  at  half  price  _ - - - - 

Capital  in  horses,  cattle,  sheep,  utensils,  <fcc.  for  plantation, 
about  $30  to  each  person,  to  aid  in  making  food  and 
clothing,  (fee.  ------ 

Capital  in  other  lands  to  support  stock,  raise  corn,  (fee.  at  20 
acres  to  each  of  the  680,000,  worth  $20  per  acre  cleared 
Capital,  temporary,  or  floating,  to  buy  clothing  not  made  on 
plantation,  pay  taxes,  overseers,  freight,  tools  for  cotton,  (fee. 
$45  to  each 


$40,000,000 

272.000. 000 

136.000. 000 

20.400.000 
272,060,000 

30.600.000 


$771,000,000 


Making,  in  all,  about  $740,000,000  of  capital  permanently  invested  or 
fixtjd,  and  about  $30,000,000  temporarily  or  circulating. 

The  crop  in  Demarara,  per  acre,  is  said  to  be  400  pounds  clean.  Edin- 
burgh Encyclopedia,  article  ‘‘Cotton,”  1815.  But,  in  another  place,  the 
crop  in  Guiana  is  computed,  on  an  average,  at  only  200  pounds,  and  costs 
14  cents  (or  7 d.)  per  pound  to  raise  it. 

The  capital,  per  acre,  invested  there  in  land,  buildings,  slaves,  (fee.  is 
computed  for  1814,  at  about  $730,  which  is  nearly  double  the  amount  com- 
puted above  for  the  United  States.  (See  same  book.)  He  states  also  the  cost 
of  cotton  land  in  Louisiana  at  about  $12^-  per  acre,  slaves  at  $430  each,  and 
assigns  30  for  a plantation  of  600  acres  and  over;  horses  and  sheep  for 
same,  costing  about  $2,250,  or  $75  for  each  slave.  Those  30  slaves  will 
raise  1,000  pounds  of  cotton  each;  (and,  it  is  presumed,  maintain  them- 
selves from  the  land  not  in  cotton,  and  stock  on  it.)  The  annual  expenses  of 
overseers,  physician,  tools,  clothing  and  taxes,  with  freight  of  cotton  to 
market,  are  computed  at  about  $1,350,  or  $45  each  per  year;  which,  de- 
ducted from  the  price  of  the  cotton,  valued  at  21  cents  per  pound,  or  about 
$6,450,  leaves  about  $5,100  as  a returnon  the  original  investment  of  about 
$22,500,  (or  at  the  rate  of  nearly  25  per  cent.)  viz: 

600  acres  at  $12J  per  acre  -----  $7,500 

30  slaves,  at  $430  each  -----  12,900 

Horses,  sheep,  &.c.  - - - - - - 2,250 


$22,650 


[4]  The  number  of  persons  is  computed  on  similar  data  and  principlef 
to  those  suggested  in  the  first  mode  of  estimating  the  capital.  Some  allow 
ances  are  made  in  certain  cases,  but  for  comparison  there  has  been  pre 


22  [ Doc.  No.  146.  ] 

served,  similar  proportions  in  all  the  years  for  which  the  computation  is 
carried  out  in  the  table. 

Thus  two  millions  of  acres,  at  one  field  hand  to  every  six  acres,  would 
require  a bdlit  340,000  laborers;  but  many  compute  that  ihe  number  in  the 
United  States  is  over  550,000,  who  are  chiefly,  though  not  entirely,  engaged 
in  field  labor.  Suppose  the  v/hole  number  to  be  double  the  field  hands,  as 
above  computed,  or  680,000,  who  are  engaged  in  field  labor,  picking  and 
otherwise  assisting  in  the  cultivation  of  cotton  and  corn,  and  the  estimate  of 
laborers  is  complete  at  about  680,000.  But  allowing  that  a number  more 
.should  be  added,  who  are  connected  with  the  cultivators,  as  infirm  women, 
very  young  children,  and  too  aged  persons,  &c.  unable  to  labor  in  the  field, 
besides  ovtu'seers,  owners  and  their  respective  families,  dependent  on  the 
cotton  crop,  and  it  is  presumed  that  then,  a million  of  persons  would  be 
considered  as  now  engaged  in  the  United  States,  directly  and  indirectly,  in 
the  growing  of  cotton:  but  the  actual  laborers  are  only  about  t\vo-thirds  of 
that  number. 

The  numbers  are,  for  comparative  views,  in  ail  other  countries  stated  on 
the  same  principle,  though  they  are  doubtless  more,  in  most  nations,  to 
raise  the  same  quantity  of  cotton  for  reasons  too  obvious  for  recital,  and 
especially  where  the  saw  gin  and  horse  power  are  less  used. 

[5]  The  whole  value  is  computed  from  the  quantity  of  the  crop  in  any 
particular  calendar  year,  and  tiie  price  it  bears  here  the  next  calendar  and 
fiscal  year,  which  is  the  time  most  of  it  is  sold. 

The  whole  value  of  what  is  grown  elsewhere  is  computed  from  the  num- 
ber of  pounds,  as  estimated  in  table  A,  and  rating  it,  on  an  average,  at  only 
one-half  the  value  per  pound,  at  the  difterent  perods  which  the  American 
cotton,  on  an  average,  then  bore  at  home.  Considering  the  qualities  of 
each,  their  cleanliness,  distances  from  a foreign  market,  the  great  propor- 
tion of  it  in  Asia,  &c.  this  is  supposed  to  be  a high  enough  value.  See 
prices  (note  2 above,  and  note  1)  in  India,  and  in  Liverpool,  of  different 
kinds  of  cotton.  Our  cotton  is  of  a better  species,  and  better  cleaned,  (Lc. 
See  3 Crawford’s  Hist,  of  Ind.  Arch.  350  to  360.  Though  in  1791,  its 
y wa.s  considered  so  inferior,  that  it  ^vas  supposed  foreign  cotton 
must  be  imported  to  supply  factories.  Gales  and  Seaton’s  Document,  vol.  1. 
Finance,  peige  142. 


[ \dl-i  I 


'WKfl 


■j  .Jsir>r^simA 


' I 


■,i<;>.i'.'.^  :JA 


4:<'r;  :■•  .| 

: .•  a\!T  ; 


ii  • 


...  , ■ ,..  i 


' ..-nvuiu^'  k'.ym4 


I iM  .-1::  ^ 


• /Oi; 


,a 

cfe'  ■ 


Oa 


: os:  .;  ^-Si  . ! 


i .«  . . 
, - • ■<■ 

' ' t- 

i.  .|l 


:t 


•■  -J 


■:.■> 
i,“  ' ■ 


It-  - 

H Y' 


'&r, 


■St 


i,;,\  '5 

t 

■ s 


t-l» 

•V, 


■i  V 


*-■ . 


;l 


' I 'Ami  7 


-■y\ 


iA 


,r8 


Oil 


HT  ^- 


,}§■■ 

' ' 

t8r; , - 
t'm- 


M . . 

(I  r,.^MU 

M , . ; 

■ - .1  -IP- 


I ■.-'■'■’■■■  ' 

I ■^.  i'--' 

? t.’  . 

I . 

4181  , 
BjH-r  -., 

ti3i.;,', 

i: 

^;R‘  t 

. iX-i|  '•  YV 

V • ! 

yyj 


24 


[ Doc.  No.  146.  ] 
D. 

COTTON,  RAW. 


Exports  of  cotton  from — [10]  [11] 


1 

TJnited  States. 

Egypt  and 
Turkey. 

Brafil. 

India. 

West  Indies, 

Spanish 

America. 

Elsewhere. 

1 

}bs. 

lbs. 

lbs. 

lbs. 

lbs. 

lbs. 

lbs. 

1770 

2,000 

[8] 

Millioiis, 

Millions. 

Millions. 

Millions 

Millions. 

Millions. 

Milliom 

1789 

1790 

4 

] 0 

1791 

1 

5 

_ 

20 

- 

12 

- 

5 

1792 

1 

T 

1 

1794 

4 

_ 

1 

1795 

4 

- 

- 

20 

1796 

6,V 

1797 

3f 

1798 

1799 

9J 

1800 

17f 

1801 

20tV 

24 

30 

17 

- 

7 

1802 

m 

[2] 

- 

- 

- 

224 

1863 

1804 

38tV 

1805 

m 

- 

41^ 

1806 

374 

1807 

661 

1808 

12 

1809 

531 

1810 

93* 

1811 

62i 

31 

7 

.. 

13 

1812 

29 

1813 

19i 

1814 

1815 

83 

1816 

8li 

1817 

854 

1818 

924 

1819 

88 

1820 

127a  . 

1821 

124* 

28 

50 

9 

- 

1822 

1^4* 

1823 

173  N 

11 

1824 

I42i* 

14 

1825 

1764 

- 

- 

75 

[ D^.  No.  146.  ] 2S 

D — Coiitinvied. 

COTTON,  RAW. 


Exports  of  cotton  from — 


Years. 

United  States. 

Egypt  and 
Turkey. 

Brazil. 

India. 

West  Indies. 

Spanish 

America. 

Elsewhere., 

lbs. 

lbs. 

lbs. 

lbs. 

lbs. 

lbs. 

lbs. 

1826 

1827 

1828 
1829 

Millions. 

2044 

294 

210 

264f 

298i 

Millions. 

Millions. 

Millions. 

Millions. 

Millions. 

MiilioTiSi^ 

1830 

19 

39 

151  68 

10 

- 

4 

1831 

1832 

1833 

277 

322i 

3244 

20i 

37 

70 

12 

-i 

1834 

1835 

384|- 

3864 

23 

30 

80 

8 

7 

3 

[1] 

[2] 

[3] 

[4] 

[6] 

[7] 

. 

[8] 

[91 

[1]  The  exports  of  cotton,  or,  in  other  words,  the  foreign  trade  in  raw 
cotton,  in  the  whole  world,  is  small  compared  with  the  whole  growtii^ 
manufacture,  and  consumption  of  that  article.  It  probably  does  not  exceed 
535  millions  of  pounds,  and  of  that  the  United  States  export  about  384 
lions  of  pounds,  or  almost  three-fourths.  Our  exports  each  year  have  ii®t 
always  corresponded  with  that  part  of  the  crop  of  the  previous  year  not  con- 
sumed at  home,  as  in  1808,  1812,  &c.  commercial  restrictions  and  wat 
caused  the  stocks  on  hand  to  accumulate,  and  the  high  prices  in  some  othfgr 
years  have  left  much  less  on  hand  here  than  usual. 

[2]  Before  1802,  the  exports  of  cotton  did  not  appear  on  the  custom- 
house books  so  as  to  show  what  was  of  foreign  and  what  of  domestic  growtii ; 
and  hence,  before  that  year,  and  ocicasionally  since,  to  1825,  one  or  tw<® 
millions  a year  of  our  exports  may  have  been  the  growth  of  India  or  the 
West  Indies.  Seyberfs  Statistics,  pages  152  and  257,  and  see  table  B,  note 
[4].  See  when  first  begun,  table  F,  note  [9].  See  amounts  for  some  years?. 
Seybert,  152  and  4. 

[3]  From  1821  to  1824,  inclusive,  from  Egypt.  See  Urquhart  on  Turkey^ 
page  179.  The  amount  is  too  high,  if  the  bag  or  bale  was  computed  tm  it 
is  now,  at  218  pounds  instead  of  98,  as  formerly.  No  exports  were  from 
Egypt  before  1820  ; but  previously  the  supplies  in  England  were  in  a 
considerable  ratio  from  Smyrna  and  other  parts  of  Turkey.  See  table  F’ 
and  London  Cyclopedia,  article  “ Cotton,”  and  Edinburgh  Encyclopedia^ 

Cotton.”  See  table  A,  note  [6].  Her  exports  for  1835,  as  well  as  1834^ 
are  said  to  be  diminishing. 


26 


[ Doc.  No.  146,  ] 

[4]  A great  part  of  this  is  Irom  the  northern  provinces  of  Brazil,  and  in- 
cludes most  of  her  crop.  See  Walsh’s  Travels  in  Brazil.  From  one-half 
million  to  one  million  is  exported  from  Rio  and  Bahia.  From  1809  to  1813 
from  50,000  to  75,000  bags,  averaging  180  pounds  each,  were  exported 
from  Maranham  alone,  and  about  two-thirds  to  three-fourths  of  it  to  Eng- 
land, (1  Roster’s  Travels,  page  227).  From  Pernambuco,  the  exports  of 
raw  cotton  were,  from  1808  to  1813,  on  the  increase,  from  26,877  bags  to 
65,327.  See  Roster’s  Travels,  page  146 — note.  See  Smithers’s  Tables  in 
History  of  lav.  The  exports  from  Brazil  were  often  formerly  described  to 
be  from  Portugal,  as  she  was  a dependency,  and  as  most  of  it  was  under 
her  colonial  system  shipped  first  to  Portugal,  and  then  re-exported.  Little 
or  none  was  raised  in  the  mother  country.  London  Cyclop,  art.  “ Cotton.” 
Coffee  and  sugar  are  taking  the  place  of  cotton  in  her  exports. 

[5]  The  exports  for  1830  from  all  places  except  the  United  States,  are 
given  partly  from  data  in  Pitkin’s  Stat.  484,  which  show  tliat  from  India  to 
all  Europe  in  that  year  they  were  about  25  millions  of  pounds  ; from  Egypt 
and  the  Levant  about  18|-  millions  of  pounds,  and  from  Brazil  and  West 
Indies  about  49|^  millions  of  pounds.  Due  additions  have  been  made  to 
these  for  exports  elsewhere  than  to  Europe. 

[6]  Of  this  from  India,  60  millions  of  pounds  were  shipped  from  Bombay, 

and  most  of  the  rest  from  Calcutta.  Evid.  on  East  Ind.  Comp,  pages  13 
and  287,  appendix,  1832,  A.  D.  See  1 Milbourn’s  Orient.  Com.  It  is  sup- 
posed that  the  exports  of  cotton  from  India  will  increase  rapidly  as  her  trade 
is  more  free  since  1833,  though  less  restricted  than  formerly  since  1823.  1 

Smith’s  Com.  Digest,  page  15. 

Most  of  the  raw  cotton  of  the  India  islands  has  been  consumed  where 
raised.  McCulloch,  page  437.  Tlie  quantities  for  all  the  years  except 
1805  and  1825,  are  estimates  made  by  knowing  the  amount  of  exports  to 
England  and  the  United  States,  with  those  in  some  of  the  years  to  China. 

In  London  Cyclopedia,  article  “ Cotton,”  tlie  exports  from  India  to  China 
alone,  in  1818,  are  stated  at  230  millions  of  pounds,  which  must  be  an 
error,  or  all  the  other  computations,  as  to  both  crops  and  exports,  are  inuch 
too  low  in  regard  to  India. 

[7]  The  exports  from  the  West  Indies  sometimes  exceed  their  whole 
crop,  as  it  is  imported  from  the  Spanish  Main,  and  re-exported.  See  table 
A,  note  [5].  Colquhoiin,  page  378,  says  sometimes  double.  In  1793  they 
exported  to  England  considerable  cotton  grown  in  the  United  States. 
Smithers,  page  1.56.  See  more  on  their  exports,  table  A,  note  [5]. 

[8]  The  exports  of  cotton  from  Spanish  America  in  1802,  were  chiefly 
from  Vera  Cruz,  collected  there  from  other  places.  1 Dict’y  of  Span.  Com. 
and  Finance,  pages  63  to  69.  From  1804  to  1810  about  5-|-  millions  were 
shipped  from  Venezuela  yearly,  (Mollier’s  Travels  in  Colombia,  455 — note,) 
and  half  a million  from  New  Granada,  Ditto,  456 — note.  From  Lagn^n'ay 
in  1823,  about  one- fourth  of  a million  exported.  Hall’s  Colombia,  page  152. 
In  1822,  about  one-half  of  a million  exported  from  Caraccas,  and  14  mill- 
ions of  pounds  from  all  the  Spanish  provinces.  2 Hist,  of  Colombia,  1822. 

The  exports  for  1834  are  an  estimate  of  my  own. 

Those  for  1794  are  from  4 Hiimboldt’s  Personal  Narrative,  page  125 — note. 


27 


[ Doc.  No.  146.  ] 

ef  which  very  nearly  half  was  from  Laguyra,  (3  do.  192,  6 do.  202,)  and 
2^  millions  of  pounds  before  the  revolution,  exported  from  Yaragua,  Mara- 
caibo, and  the  Gulf  of  Cariaco. 

See  table  P,  note  9,  as  to  the  exports  from  English  territories  in  America 
before  the  revolution,  and  which  were  probably  grown  in  the  West  Indies 
or  Spanish  America. 

[9]  Among  the  places  not  enumerated  which  have  exported  some  cotton, 
it  is  said  in  Montgomery’s  Hist,  of  Brit.  Col.  page  604,  that  14,900  pounds 
of  raw  cotton  were  exported  from  the  river  Gambia,  in  1833. 

In  1775  there  was  exported  to  Holland  alone  from  Surinam  one-eighth 
of  a million  of  pounds.  2 Dicfy  of  Spanish  Coin.  Smithers’s  Hist,  of  Liv. 

The  countries  more  particularly  included  under  “ Elsewhere,”  though 
not  all,  and  about  which  much  is  known  of  their  exports  in  cotton,  are 
Dernarara  and  Berbice.  See  imports  into  England,  table  G.  The  data 
as  to  exports  from  Brazil,  West  Indies,  and  ^‘Elsewhere,”  in  last  column, 
are  chiefly  the  ascertained  imports  from  those  enumerated  places  into  other 
countries.  From  Naples  and  Spain  some  cotton  was,  in  1817,  exported  to 
France.  2 Chaptal,  page  6.  But  probably  most  of  the  growth  of  other 
places.  See  table  A,  note  [9]. 

[10]  The  cost  of  exportation  or  freight  from  the  United  States  to  Europe, 
is  usually  less  than  two  cents  per  pound.  Smithers,  page  139.  Even  this 
has  been  reduced  by  the  improvements  which  mark  the  spirit  of  the  age,  as 
the  cotton  is  so  pressed  in  tire  bales  that  it  occupies  less  space  in  a vessel, 
and  the  vessels  in  this  trade  are  so  constructed  as  to  carry  more  when  of 
the  same  tonnage. 


[11]  A small  duty  is  imposed  on  it  in  England  and  France.  Baines’s  His. 
317  and  515.  Yet  in  1769  it  was  made  free  to  aid  the  manufacturer.  3 
McPhers.  Com.  447.  But  the  duty  on  raw  cotton  is  remitted  or  allowed 
in  drawback,  on  exportation  of  the  manulactured  article  in  England, 
Pebrier  says  in  his  tables  in  his  work  on  England,  though  not  if  the  raw 
article  is  re-exported.  3 McPherson  on  Com.  page  659.  The  duty  was  6 
per  cent,  ad  valorem  in  England  for  some  years  before  1831  on  foreign 
cotton,  then  raised  to  5s.  1.0d.  per  cwt.  (1  Com.  Dig.  page  16,  by  Smith,) 
and  in  1833  reduced  to  2s.  lid.  per  cwt.  On  cotton  from  a British  posses- 
sion, the  duty  is  only  4d.  per  cwt.  See  McCulloch,  page  440.  But  for- 
merly, as  in  1799,  it  was  from  85.  9d.  per  100  pounds,  to  12.9.  6d.  from 
different  places : and  from  1803  to  1815,  from  16.9.  10c?.  to  33.9.  lOd.  See 
a table  in  Edinl).  Encyciop.  article  Cotton.” 

The  duty  in  tlie  United  States  on  foreign  cotton  imported  here  is,  and 
always  has  remained  since  1790,  at  3 cents  per  pound.  Though  Mr.  Ha- 
milton recommended  its  reduction  in  1791,  to  aid  our  manufactures.  See 
Rep.  Dec.  30,  1791. 

The  duty  in  France  varies,  under  various  circumstances,  from  10  to  16 
percent.  See  McCulloch,  page  639,  “ Havre,”  and  2 Com.  Dig.  73,  by 
^Smith. 

ij  There  is  said  to  be  no  duty  on  raw  cotton  in  Switzerland.  In  England, 
i!  in  1833,  it  is  stated  to  be  3 farthings  per  pound,  or  10  per  cent.  West, 
ij  Rev.  for  April,  ’33. 


I 


28 


[ Doc.  No.  146.  J 

E. 

COTTON,  RAW. 


Exports  of  cotton  from — 


eS 

a'S 

.S 

1 

.a 

d 

a 

etj 

S 

'Sb 

i-i 

o 

o .a 

. 

-C  t« 

o i 

IS 

"3 

Q 

a 

<u 

O '~d 
. C 

(D 

o 

J 

tc 

< 

o 

a 

J2;  Cd 

s 

<u 

, lbs. 

lbs. 

lbs. 

lbs. 

lbs. 

lbs. 

lbs. 

DoilaTS- 

1789 

Millions. 

Millions. 

Millions, 

Millions. 

Millions. 

Millions. 

Millions. 

1790 

1791 

1792 

1793 

- 

- 

- 

- 

— 

48,285 

52,000 

51,470 

160,00© 

Millions. 

1794 

X 

1795 

I 

•24 

1796 

2t¥ 

1797 

1798 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

li 

1799 

1800 

10 

5 

1801 

_ 

_ 

9 1 

1802 

_ 

_ 

1803 

_ 

’'1 

1804 

_ 

_ 

_ 

_ 

1805 

_ 

_ 

1806 

_ 

8x 

1807 

_ 

_ 

14| 

1808 

% 

1809 

_ 

_ 

_ 

— 

— 

1810 

~6 

40 

20 

10 

15 

4 

15i 

1811 

_ 

_ 

1812 

S 

1813 

1814 

_ 

% 

1815 

_ 

_ 

1% 

1816 

24i 

1817 

! — 

22^ 

1818 

_ 

-- 

3H 

1819 

— 

21 

1820 

30 

37 

8 

25 

28 

6 

3 

22i 

1821 

1 

_ 

_ 

20r 

1822 

24 

1823 

_ 

23| 

1824 

211 

1825 

_ 

_ 

38| 

1826 

_ 

_ 

25 

1827 

_ 

29i 

1828 

_ 

S2| 

1829 

_ 

26f 

1830 

lioi 

551 

24 

49 

37to 

Hi 

3 

29s 

1831 

— 

25t 

1832 

— 

311 

1833 

36 

1834 

164 

671 

511 

561 

301 

in 

3 

49i 

1835 

_ 

6U 

[1] 

m 

fS] 

[ Doc.  No.  146.  ] 2a 

[11  The  exports  from  each  State  are  the  foreign  ones,  and  for  1830  and 
183^  from  official  data  ; but  prior  to  that  they  are  estimates  from  the  crop, 
consumption  at  home,  (fee. 

See  table  F,  note  [6],  as  to  some  exports  before  the  revolution. 

The  first  cotton  supposed  to  be  of  American  growth,  brought  to  New 
York  city,  for  foreign  export,  it  is  said,  came  from  Savannah  in  1792,  and 
consisted  of  only  two  bags.  The  amount  of  exports  coastwise  has  not 
been  ascertained,  for  reasons  stated  in  the  report.  Those  for  foreign  coun- 
tries from  any  particular  State  often  include  more  than  the  crop  of  that 
State,  as  from  New  York,  which  raises  no  cotton,  and  from  Louisiana 
which  raises  but  a small  part  of  her  exports.  See  table  B,  note  1. 

[2]  The  portion  exported  of  sea  island  cotton,  was,  in  1834,  8,085,935 
pounds,  and  in  1835,  was  7,752,736 ; and  was  chiefly  from  South  Carolina 
and  Georgia.  See  official  returns. 

Its  cultivation  was,  as  remarked  in  a former  table,  introduced  into  South 
Carolina  as  early  as  1787,  from  Bahama,  and  the  export  of  it  during  the 
last  20  years  has  been  on  an  average  not  far  from  8 millions  of  pounds. 
It  may  be  cultivated  more  extensively,  it  is  supposed,  in  Florida.  See  j>rices 
ill  table  C and  notes,  and  B,  note  3. 

It  is  now  exported  chiefly  to  England,  say  seven-ninths,  over  one-ninth  to 
France,  and  the  rest  elsewhere.  See  McCulloch,  page  440.  It  has  taken 
the  place  of  the  fine  cottons  formerly  from  the  isle  of  Bourbon. 

See  a table  of  exports  of  it  from  1802  to  1816,  inclusive,  going  in  some 
years  to  nearly  10  millions  of  pounds,  and  to  others  short  of  one  million  ; 
but,  as  before  named,  being  generally  about  8 millions  of  pounds.  Seyb.  Stat. 
pages  152  and  4. 

[3]  The  value  has  been  computed  from  the  quantity  and  average  price 
through  each  year,  so  far  as  obtainable  from  official  data. 

In  Seyb.  Stat.  page  147,  is  a table  of  the  values  from  1803  to  1817, 
inclusive. 


30 


[ l>oc.  No.  146.  3 
F. 

COTTON,  RAW. 


Exports  of,  to  what  places. 


S 

p 

! 

.1 

VI 

0 

0 

0 

'Ss 

K 

w 

o 

ie 

B 

§ 

c 

r/i 

B 

B 

m 

tiled  States  to  c 
places. 

1 

’bo 

fl 

W 

G 

s 

IS 

Q 

© 

rS 

'So 

c 

p 

o 

'n 

p 

0 

w 

■S 

'S 

G 

w 

© 

aziland  West  I 
to  France. 

ypt  and  Turkt 
England. 

ypt  and  Turkt 
France. 

1 «ther  places 
England. 

tD 

P 

a 

p 

PQ 

bo 

P 

bX) 

W 

< 

lbs. 

lbs. 

lbs. 

lbs. 

lbs. 

lbs. 

lbs. 

lbs. 

lbs. 

lbs. 

lbs. 

1770 

2,000 

[9] 

Millions. 

Mil’s. 

Mil’s. 

Mil’s. 

Mil’s. 

Mi!  Vs, 

1787 

— 

— 

_ 

— 

6| 

_ 

H 

n 

1789 

Ratio  of 

Millions. 

Mil’s. 

Mil’s. 

, Mil’s. 

Ratio  of 

Ratio. 

[8] 

1790 

herimpon& 

from  tJ.  S. 

imports 
from  Braz. 

1791 

1 

1 ¥ 0 0 



_ 



_ 

i 

1792 

1 

T 2 6 



_ 

i 

1 

1793 

1 

2 T 

_ 

_ 

i 

1794 

1 

1 f 7 

1 

4 

3 

t 

1795 

1 

2 S 

_ 

1 

„ 

3 

5 

1796  . 

J 

T- 

I 



3 

4 



i 

2 

5 

1797 

1 

TT 

__ 

li 

_ 

¥ 

i 

3 

17^98 

i 

f 





2 

__ 

3 

J 

* 

1799 

lbs.' 

1 

f 

- 

- 

7 

~ 

3 

i 

Millions. 

1800  , 

,16 



_ 



1 

J 

i 

1801 

19 

.3. 

4 

_ 

3 

T 

1802 

23J 

2 

_ 

3 



|- 

1 

e 

1803 

27\ 

5. 

4 

„ 

li 

_ 

1 

TT 

1804 

6 

_ 



3 

9 

1 

TT 

1805 

32-1 

[ 

_ 

« 

■5- 

1 

TT 

1806 

24j 

7 



2 

1 

9 

1807 

53J 

6 



3j 

_ 

1 

TT 

1 

IT 

1808 

8 

2 

5j 

„ 

1 

TT 

t 

1809 

13f 

_■ 

_ 

i 

1 

1 I 

1810 

36 

_ 



i 

1 

1 8 

1811 

46| 

_ 

i> 

T 

1 

2 e j 

1812 

26 

_ 

2 

5 

tV  ! 

j 

1813 

_ 

iOi 

„ 

3 

S 

tV  I 

1814 

1|: 

_ 

_ 

3 

5 

i 

TT 

1815 

45| 

20 

— 

_ 

i 

1 

TT 

1816 

573- 

.1. 

18 

„ 

- 

_ 

1 

s 

1 

3 5 

1817 

51 

j 

_ 

36 

__ 

1 

Tef 

1818 

58^ 

- j 

_ 



1 

TT 

1819  i 

51|  i 

, 1 

- ' 

- 

1 

11 

[ Doc.  No.  146.  ] 

F — Continued. 
COTTON,  RAW. 


21 


Exports  of,  to  what  places. 


'd  , 

10 

0) 

0 

0 

'C 

J=s 

W 

2 

6 

o 

d 

Q] 

o 

CJ 

o 

o 

s s 

d 

'bi5 

d 

d 

J5 

tiO 

d 

W 

d 

d 

Trj 

d 

W 

o 

in 

<u 

d 

'Q  a> 

hi. 

^ d 
C3 

O) 

i-,  . 

d T3 

'd  Y'a 

>, 

a; 

d 

"d  d 

2 

d . 

i 

C/5 

05 

m d. 

W 

o 

o 

o 

o 

d Pm 
2 

d d 

d w 

d Cm 

iD 

m 

s 

c3 

d 

d 

'n 

C3 

m 

I 

'n 

d 

m 

Si) 

W 

w 

0 

w 

s 

lbs. 

lbs. 

lbs. 

lbs. 

lbs. 

lbs. 

lbs. 

lbs. 

lbs. 

lbs. 

lbs. 

Millions. 

Millions. 

Mil’s. 

Mil’s. 

Mil’s. 

Millions. 

Mil’s. 

Mil’.s. 

j Mil’s. 

Mil’s. 

Miirni?. 

1820 

90 

— 

23 

- 

29 

— 

1 i 

- 

2i 

1821 

93| 

27i 

n 

9 

— 

191 

7 

- 

i 

- . 

2f 

1822 

101 

2H 

8| 

4+ 

- 

24f 

101 

1 4 

1 0 

- 

2 

1823 

142^ 

25 

8+ 

15“ 

- 

23i 

7 

- 

li 

- 

2 

1824 

92 

40^ 

16-i 

— 

25 

T'tV 

- 

2 

1825 

140 

30“ 

Y 

20i 

33 

s 

- 

19 

- 

1826 

131 

62+ 

8| 

21 

- 

9A 

4| 

- 

10 

-- 

1 

1827 

217 

70| 

Hi 

20 

20f 

7 

- 

5 

- 

1.1 

1828 

151| 

53^ 

101 

32^ 

25 

29 

6 

- 

7 

- 

1-1 

1829 

157 

67+ 

23 

25 

(qii*) 

29 

41 

- 

6 

- 

1830 

211 

75 

13A 

I2i 

i — 

33 

Q1 

7 

*^To 

8 i 

6 

-1 

1831 

205| 

46  or  50 

9“ 

96 

1 664 

31+ 

2+ 

H 

1 74 

)-i 

1832 

217| 

73  or  77+ 

16 

35 

I 58 

20 

2" 

3-1 

9 1 

1 8^ 

1833 

227J 

76f 

n 

32i 

1 - 

281 

2 

1 i 

! " 

1-1 

1834 

266| 

79-,^. 

20 

oo 

1 40 

18 

4 

4 

u 

1 7 

1835 

252 

lOOlj 

16-1 

! 42-4 

(qu.) 

25 

I 

[1] 

[2J  i 

1 

1 [8] 

jW 

[5] 

[7j 

[6]l 

; 

< 

i 

s 

[1]  The  eX|X)rLs  to  England  from  diflorent  places  are  given  chiefly  from 
Marshall’s  tables,  page  iU);  London  Cyclop,  article  “Cotton.”  As  to 
those  from  the  Unit^  States,  since  1820,  see  our  own  commercial  tablesr. 
A slight  diflerence  sometiraes  occurs  front  a reference  by  some  to  the  ex- 
ports to  Liverpool  alone,  or  to  England  aloiie,  not  including  Scotland  or 
Ireland.  The  exports  from  the  United  States  to  them  all  were. 


Year. 

1831 

1832 

1833 


pf  lbs. 

:228 

238i 


Year. 

1834 

1835 


MUVs  of  id.'’: 

284 
26 


See  Porter’s  official  tables,  page  125.  Those  for  1817,  from  India  to 
England, are  from  R-ees’s  Cyclop,  article  “United  States,”  in  a note,  They 


Bt  [ Doc.  No.  146.  ] 

aire  believed  to  be  too  high.  The  quantities  are  given  in  pounds,  where 
.aa.'certainable  with  accuracy,  and  where  not  so,  the  proportions  are  stated 
from  table  G,  which  are  founded  on  the  imports  into  England,  from  the 
United  States  and  other  countries.  (See  Marshall,  page  110,  and  Smithers, 
146.)  The  actual  quantities  exported  from  the  United  States  to  all 
Great  Britain,  before  1800,  cannot  be  obtained  by  me;  but  the  number  of 
Wes  to  liiverpool  alone,  can  be,  and,  as  a matter  of  some  curiosity,  are 
annexed:  1791,  64;  1792,  503;  1793,  111;  1794,  348;  1795,  2,147;  1796, 
4,668  1797,  5,193;  1798,  12,163;  1799,  13,236;  1800,  24,138.  See 
more  in  books  cited. 

[2]  The  exports  from  the  United  States  to  England  and  France,  are 
so'metimes  taken  from  their  official  reports  of  imports,  and  sometimes  from 
onrs  of  exports,  occasionally  differing  a little  by  losses  at  sea,  imperfect 
returns,  and  in  the  former,  not  always  including  Scotland  and  Ireland. 
The  proportions  are  given  in  a few  cases  where  the  exact  quantity  was 
imcertain,  on  the  principle  in  table  G.  For  1813  and  ’14,  see  that  table. 
But  the  quantities  given  for  1834  and  1835,  are  from  our  own  returns.  In 
fespect  to  the  other  places  to  which  our  exports  go,  a statement  is  annexed, 
giving  the  details  since  1820,  while  our  returns  have  been  made  up  ac- 
curately and  in  more  detail. 


■^‘TATEMENT  of  the  quantity  of  Colton  exported  from  the  United  States  to  other  places,  than 
Great  Britain  and  France,  m the  year  ciuiin§  September  30,  1821,  to  1835,  inclusive. 


ncj 

55 

>< 

To  Russia. 

Holland 
& Belgium. 

Spain,  j 

Spanish 

W.  I. 

Trieste. 

Hanse 

Towns. 

Italy  and 
Malta, 

Ail  other 
places. 

Pounds. 

Pounds. 

Pounds,  j 

Po^mds. 

Pounds.. 

Pounds. 

Pounds. 

Pounds. 

1^21 

304,680 

4,186,096 

284,832 

772,296 

34,976 

748,110 

8*97,804 

2 ,506 , 777 

mt2 

713,789 

1,970,258 

445,964 

210,138 

2,955,581 

1,9-56,253 

450,762 

1823 

309,678 

4,650,548 

177,789 

2,356,594 

217,683 

833,332 

1824 

501,645 

432,976 

3~853 

_ 

292,852 

221,529 

1825- 

133,934 

1,420,225 

577,109 

980 

509,031 

m*2S 

15,262 

4,592,439 

_ 

_ 

33,311 

2,012,679 

_ 

1,820,116 

1827 

247,101 

5,861,400 

7,990 

183,204 

3,389,514 

148,170 

1,440.547 

18:18 

649,791 

3,780,988 

980,354 

3,386,108 

407,068 

1,072; 448 

1&29' 

227,883 

9,595,337 

4,071,247 

6,857,796 

1,056,387 

1,261,925 

1830 

111,376 

8,561,193 

32,210 

_ 

2,814,477 

4,123,047 

235,265 

638,877 

1831. 

761,735 

972,659 

555,098 

2,778,858 

2,416,765 

305,695 

2,243,741 

1832 

838,951 

3,920,016 

2,283,875 

1,654,775 

4,075,122 

580,974 

2,250,190 

18331,447,405 

2,673,253 

758,216 

1,107,600 

1,870,620 

1,759,615 

1834 

1,260,494 

6,096,462 

892,967 

_ 

3,805,312 

6,612,895 

190,842 

1,153,382 

1835 

974,801 

5,694,358 

878,219 

- 

4,943,061 

2,788,147 

12,952 

1,493,760 

[3]  The  exports  to  England  from  other  places  than  the  United  States  for 
1834  and  ’5,  are  from  the  last  annual  report,  in  ^nuary,  1836,  at  Liver- 
pool, It  is  said,  in  Smithers’s  History  of  Liverpool,  page  124,  that  the  first 
imports  from  India  were  in  1798,  and  proved  to  be  very  profitable;  but 
they  began  five  or  six  years  earlier  to  London,  if  not  to  Liverpool.  See 
table  G,  and  note's,  and  same  pag»  in  Smithers,|that  Surats  were  imported 
111  1783 ; in  page  1^5?  he  says,  that  53^  millions  of  pounds  in  one  of  the 
late  years,  being  then  1824,,’  were  shipped  from  Calcutta  to  England,  but 
official  Hibles  are  lower. 


33 


[ Doc.  No.  146,  ] 

[4]  Of  the  exports  from  India  to  China,  in  1828,  over  121  millions  of 
pounds  were  from  Calcutta  alone.  Evidence  on  East  India  Company, 
page  13,  1832.  For  1834,  see  Baines’s  History  page  32,  which  is 
too  low.  For  other  years  except  1831  and  ’2,  see  1 Milbourne’s  Oriental 
Comm,  page  281.  The  cotton  trade  to  China  began  in  the  last  half  century, 
or  about  1787,  and  the  reasons  for  it  are  stated  m table  A,  note  9.  The 
exports  for  1831  and  ’2,  are  from  McCulloch,  pages  237  and  ’8.  China  has 
raised  and  manufactured  cotton  since  the  13th  century,  though  less  since 
1787.  See  table  A,  note  9.  In  London  Cyclop,  article  ‘-Cotton,”  it  is  said, 
that  in  1818,  about  230  millions  of  pounds  were  exported  from  India  to 
China;  but  it  is  probably  an  error.  In  supplement  to  Encyclop.  Brit.  art. 
“Cotton,”  it  is  supposed  to  be  one-half  what  had  been  yearly  consumed  m 
England,  (1824)  or  50  to  60  millions  of  pounds,  which  is  higher  than 
Milbourne,  but  it  agrees  substantially  with  McCulloch,  whose  statement 
is  from  official  returns;  it  is  the  greatest  article  of  trade  from  India  to 
China,  except  opium.  See  McCulloch,  page  236;  3 CraAvford,  Hist,  of  Ind, 
Ar.  350. 

[5]  The  exports  from  Brazil  to  England,  began  in  1781.  Smithers’s  Hist, 
of  Liverpool,  124,  and  are  often  included  till  1808,  under  the  head  of  Por- 
tugal. Smither.s,  146.  See  table  D. 

[6]  Tlie  exports  from  Egypt  alone  to  England,  it  is  said,  did  not  com- 

mence till  1823,  (Smithers’s  Hist,  page  136,)  and  consisted  of  2,108  bags,  or 
short  of  one-quarter  of  a million  of  pounds,  as  their  bags  then  weighed. 
See  London  article  “Cotton,”  which  says,  that  before  1790,  nearly 

6 or  7 millions  of  pounds  yearly,  were  exported  to  England  from  Smyrna. 

[7|  Under  West  Indies,  the  years  1834  and  ’5,  include  Deinarara,  and 
elsewhere,  not  enumerated,  as  they  are  not  discriminated  in  the  last  annua] 
report  at  Liverpool,  which  is  the  authority. 

[8]  The  exports  of  1787,  from  “ all  other  placets  ” to  England,^  inciude  If 
niillion  of  pounds  from  Demarara  and  Berbic^. 

[9]  I’he  ex|x>rts  in  1770,  were  from  the  then  provinces  of  New  York,  3 
hales;  from  Yirginia,  four  bags ; and  from  North  Carolina,  3 barrels. 
Smithers’s  History,  page  153.  It  was  probably  ail  of  foreign  growth,  i.  e. 
of  the  Spanish  Main,  or  of  the  West  Iridieq  as  was,  it  is  presumed  most, 
if  not  all,  of  the  eight  brigs  from  “.America,”  seized  in  1784.  Smithers’s 
Hist.  124  and  156.  See  table  B,  note.  First  exports  of  our  own  cotton 
were  in  small  packages  from  the  United  States,  called  “pockets.”  Smithers’js 
Hist.  135. 

It  would  seem,  that  late  as  1794,  Mr.  Jay,  when  Eiaking  the  treaty  with  Eng- 
land, was  not  aware  that  any  cotton  was  exported  from  the  United  States. 
In  Seyb.  Stat.  page  92,  it  is  said,  that  the  first  export  of  cotton  of  our 
growth  toolc  place  in  1791 . See  table  E,  note  4 


3 


34 


[ Doc.  No.  146.  ] 
G. 

COTTON,  RAW. 


Imports  of 

Where  from. 

- 1 
t- 

1 

CO 

-CD 

© 

yj 

S 

■ , , 1 

'cje 

Ul 

g ^ 

C3  ^ 

'p. 

! 

o 

iTi 

^ © 

© 

© 

"3 

o> 

b^;  B 

w 

p s 

P H 

P 

6 

^ i 

!*S  1 

lbs. 

ibs. 

lbs. 

lbs. 

lbs. 

Ib.s. 

i 

1 

Millions. 

Millions. 

Millions. 

Millions. 

Millions. 

Milliofis. 

1701  ! 

or  To 

1710  ! 

7 

1720  1 

2 

1730  1 

U 

1741 

1751 

3 

1764 

1766 

3 

1780 

5 

1784 

11 

1787 

22 

21-1 

6| 

5f 

- 

6 

1789  i 

1 

1790 

1 314 

i 

Ratio. 

Ratio. 

Ratio. 

Ratio. 

Ratio. 

Ratia 

Ratio. 

1791 

281 

i 

- 

jL 

3 

- 

1 

8 

1792 

3o" 

T2^ 

1 

— 

i 

- 

1 

TT 

1793 

19 

1 

■5  2"  5 

— 

4 

- 

1 

2l 

1 

8 

1794 

1795 

244 

26| 

1 

T i_e 
2l 

3 

I 6 

a 

- 

1 

“ 

1 

1 0 0 

1 

Too 

1 

1 T 
1 

4 2 

1796 

32 

1 

1 TT 

4 

1 

sT 

f 

- 

44 

1 

5 • 

1797 

23-1 

1 

TT 

t 

1 

1 9 

- 

1 

TT 

1 

2 # 

1798 

31i 

1 

¥ 

3 

1 

1 4 

¥ 

- 

1 

1 5 

TTT 

1799 

431 

X 

9 

f 

1 

TT 

3 

7 

- 

1. 

TT 

1800 

56 

i 

1 

1 

9 

- 

1 

T 

1 

] 3 

1801 

56 

1 

1 

TJ 

~ 

1 

1 3 

1 

3 3 

1802 

60i- 

f 

I 

1 

1 T 

1 

6 

- 

1 

2 0 

1 

1 3 i 

1803 

63-1 

1 -i 

1 

1 

Ter 

1 

1 0 

^ - 

1 

sT 

1 

7 T 

1804 

6ii 

4 

a 

T' 

¥ 

I 

I 3 

- 

1 

2 0 

1 

TTT 

1805 

591- 

58| 

3 

5 

f 

1 

TT 

1 

TT 

- 

1 

2'1  0 

1 

8 « 

1806 

3 

5 

a 

9 

1 

TT 

1 

T 

- 

1 

2 2 

1 

TT 

1807 

75 

i 

! _T. 

( 1 8 

4 

1 

I 1 

- 

1 

TT 

1 

1 1 a 

1808 

-434 

2 

5 

' 1 

1 

J 4 

2 

T 

- 

1 

S 

1 

2 4 

1809 

92| 

T¥ 

TT 

- 

1 

! 1 * 

1 

3 8 

1810 

1324 

t 

1 i 

1 

1 5 

_1_ 

- 

i 

1 
4 S 

1811 

914 

■9 

a 

! T 

1 

S 

1 

2 9 

- 

j 

1 

TT 

1812 

63 

I 4 

0 

i I 

1 

¥ 

1 

3 3" 

— 

1 

1 

IS 

[ Doc.  No.  146.  ] 

G — Oontimied. 
COTTON,  RAW. 


1824 

1825 

1826 

1827 

1828 

1829 

1830 

1831 

1832 

1833 

1834 

1835 


1474 

244i 

170^ 

2641 

222? 


Imports  of 

s 

1 

c§ 

5 

i 

lbs. 

lbs. 

Millions 

Ratio. 

1813 

51 

i 

1814 

73f 

f 

1815 

96|- 

1816 

97^ 

4 

1817 

1 26)- 

i 

1818. 

174" 

1 

1819 

1374 

i 

1820 

1474 

4 

1821 

1264 

T ■ 

1822 

1414 

4 

1823 

183| 

Where  from. 


■f- 

Y 

to  1 
to  4 


[tN] 

i 
[5] 


ib$. 


Ratio. 

I 


TT 

t‘t 

I 

A to  j- 

tV 

1 

tV 

tV 


II 

ll 


ibs. 


Ratio. 

1 

TO 
T -T 

tV 

T 

24 

tV 

1 

4 5 


1 

3 2 


TT 


lbs. 


Ratio. 

I ■ 

TT 

1 


TT 

sV 

TT 

1 

TT 

TT 

To 

1 

TT 

) 

TT 

i 

TT 


1 

TT 

tV 

tV 

1 

T¥ 

tV 

trV 

1 

OT 


TTT 


ibs. 


Ratio. 


1 

TTT 

TJJ 

3JW 

tIt 


1 

TT 

tV 

J 

5 0 

tS’ 

i 

TT 

TT 

J 

TT 

Ttt 

TOT 


lbs. 


Ratio. 


T 

tV 

TT 

1 

TT 

TT 

1 

TT 

¥ 

A 

i 

tV 

1 

i 

r 

w 

i 

[4] 


ibs. 


Ratio, 

iiV 

sV 

tV 

i 

i 

TTS- 

lie- 

T.¥ 

tV 

4 

- i 

3 

TT 

■1 

TT 


[l]  For  the  early  imports  of  cotton  into  England, see  more  in  B.nire’s 

McCulloch,  438;  and  Seyb.  Stat.  92,  ttote.  in  1787  the  importrset  « 
as  trom  1 urkey  and  B,a;ypt,  were  entirely  from  the  former,  Smyrna  Greece 
&c.and  none  from  the  last  unli!  1820  and  1823,  and  since  that  mostlv 
from  Egypt  1 he ‘fother  places”  were  cnie%  French  .and  Spanish  coll 
nies  m 1737;  but  mdude  India  and  Turkey  where  those  columns  ara 


56 


[ Doc.  No.  146.  ] 

Mank.  See  a table  in  >Smithers’s  History,  page  146.  The  early  imports  of 
raw  cotton,  after  the  manufacture  increased  much  in  England,  were  from 
the  West  Indies,  Surinam,  and  isle  of  Bourbon.  Smithers’s  History  of 
Liverpool,  123.  Those  from  Brazil,  &c.  in  1824.  See  in  Smithers,  page 
454. 

[2]  The  proportions  are  given  from  the  imports  into  Liverpool  alone; 
but  will  not  viOT  much  for  the  whole  kingdom.  They  are  stated  in  the 
present  form  to  aid  in  the  comparison,  at  different  periods'  in  the  same,  and 
different  countries.  The  fractions  are  very  near  the  true  proportion,  but 
occasionally  are  the  nezt  highest  or  lowest  to  the  exact  sum  for  convenience 
in  calculation,  as  is  the  case  in  fraclions  often  in  ail  these  tables.  See  Mar- 

• shall,  page  110;  Smithers,  147. 

[3]  The  whole  imports  into  England,  Scotland  and  Ireland,  are  included 
in  the  above  column;  as  some  of  the  writers  discriminate  between  those 
into  England  alone,  and  some  do  not.  See  Porter’s  Official  tables,  125 : 
McCulloch,  439.  See  a table  in  Smithers  page  146  ; making  the  imports 
into  Ireland  one  to  two  millions  of  pounds  yearly,  after  Irom  1791  to  1817. 
In  Baines,  the  quantities  often  differ  a few  millions,  and  are  higher  in  most 
cases.  See  also  Edinburgh  Review,  page  19,  (1827).  The  usual  quantity 
imported  into  Ireland  and  Scotland,  as  contradistinguished  from  England, 
has  been,  during  the  last  ten  years,  about  10  to  15  millions  of  pounds  per 
annum,  it  is  believed.  In  1834,  it  was  about  20  millions  of  pounds : in 
1835,  it  was  about  18  millions  of  pounds.  Most  of  that  used  in  Ireland  is 
believed  to  be  re-exported  from  England,  or  included  in  English  imports ; 
and  no  separate  tables  have  been  kept  of  Irish  imports  since  1825,  when 
those  of  cotton  exceeded  6|  millions  of  pounds.  Baines’s  History,  page  430. 
The  largest  amounts  tor  1834  and  1835  are  taken  from  the  Liverpool  re- 
ports of  January,  1836;  and  the  smaller  ones,- in  the  second  lines,  from 
other  sources  of  not  so  recent  date- 

[4]  Most  of  the  above  ratios  from  India,  between  1793  and  1809,  corres- 
pond with  1 Milbourne’s  Orient.  Com.  page  281,  and  may  differ  some  from 
the  tables  as  to  Liverpool  imports  alone. 

[5j  The  imports  from  the  the  United  States  in  1792,  1793,  <fcc.  were  . 
said  to  !)e  diieffy  through  the  British  West  Indies.  Smithers,  157.  Our 
ratio,  it  will  be  seen  by  the  sums  in  the  second  line  for  1834  and  183.5,  will 
vary  as  the  English  accounts  differ  concerning  the  whole  actual  or  esti- 
mated amoiiot  of  her  yearly  imports. 


i 

1789 

1790 

1791 

1793 

1793 

1794 

1795 

1796 

1797 

1798 

1799 

1800 

1801 

1802 

■1803 

1804^ 

1805 

1803 

1807 

1808 

1809, 

1810 

1811 

1812 

1813 

1814 

1815 

1813 

1817 

1818 

1819 

1820 

1821 

1822 

1823 

1824 

1825 

1823 

1827 

1828 

1839 

1830 

1831 

1832 

1833 

1834 

1835 

m 


[ Doc.  Mo.  146.  ] 

H.— COTTON,  RAW. 


21 


)rts  of 


lbs. 


Where  From. 


Millions. 


25 


44| 

61 
51 
'Toh 
6U 
93 
87 
611 
72s 
84|  to  91. 
35i to  61 
77  to  85- 
91 
83  to  9 11 
911 

_J!L 


Imports  of 


United  States. 

Egypt  & Turkey. 

1 

'Brazil  and  the 
I West  Indies. 

Into  Saxony,  Prus- 
sia, Trieste,  and 
Russia. 

Into  Switzerland. 

, ! 
Into  Spain..  . ■ 

Into  China. 

% 

•a  - 

ll 

s 

lbs. 

lbs. 

lbs. 

lbs. 

lbs.  ■ 

lbs. 

lbs. 

ibs. 

Millions. 

Millions. 

Millions. 

Millions. 

Millions. 

Millions 

Millions. 

- 

■ 

- 

- 

- 

~ 

- 

97,357 

Millions.. 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

“ j 

- 

i 

— 

— 

— 

_ 

1 

- 

- 

~ 

- 

- 

- 

2f 

i 

- 

- 

- 

- - 

~ 

21 

— 

— 

— 

— 

4 

„ 

— 

' ■ _ 

— 

«. 

41 

— 

_ 

_ 

- 

_ 

_ 

*- 

34 

j 

- 

- 

- 

- 

* 

3| 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

31 

_ 

„ 

, - 

- 

_ 

— 

— 

4-1 

1 

_ 

„ 

_ 

— 

4t 

2 

_ 

_ 

_ 

_ 

— 

_ 

3t 

4 

„ 

„ 

•21 

.3 

6 

_ 

_ 

_ 

1 * 

31 

4f 

■ - 

- 

- 

_ 

21 

7 

- 

_ 

- 

_ 

_ 

■25 

■ 21 

6 

_ 

1 

_ 

' _ 

_ 

3i 

9 

- 

- 

- 

41- 

~ 

- 

- 

■-  1 

- 

• “ 

l 

- 

~ 

- ■ 

i 

1 

- 

- 

- 

1 

_■ 

k 

- 

_ 

_ 

_ 

t 

lOi 

, _ V. 

- 

... 

_ 

_ : 

if 

,11  , 

- 

~ 

_ 

f 

20 

_ 

_ 

_ 

i 

13 

- 

~ 

- 

_ 

_ 

1 

- 

- 

„ 

_ 

— 

3 

- 

- 

- 

- 

_ 

_ 

„ 

111 

- ' 

- 

~ 

j ~ 

- 

15 

_ J 

_ 

_ 

_ 

1 

27f 

. 

i 6 

1 

m 

1 

T 

1 

25  . 

„ 

_ 

401 

1 

30' 

■1 

624  . 

- 

- 

- 

30?- 

i- 

5?r  ■ 

1 ' 

“ " 

< 

- 

: 1 
, i 

% ■ 
■ i 

G7i 

75 

6 

7 

38 

,,  171 

43  to  50 

71 

31 

• 39 

_ 

38  to  68 

7o  to  7 /1 

81 

3i  : ■ 

"48  7 

19| 

60 

1 

761 

36  - 

19 

-1 

78to.81| 

7 ' 

4 

_ ■ 

• 194 

2 

45? 

1 

! 91 

_ 

_ 

„ 

If 

( 

[3] 

[4] 

[5] 

ffi]  . 

[7] 

L.[gLM 

S8 


[ Doc.  No.  146.  J 

[1]  The  value  of  the  imports  of  raw  cotton  into  each  country  it  has  not 
heen  deemed  necessary  to  give  in  detail,  as  the  quantity,  and  the  prices  in 
the  United  States  and  Liverpool,  with  those  in  India,  and  some  other 
places  occasionally,  are  presented,  and  will  enable  any  person  easily  to 
make  a computation  of  tlie  whole  value  of  the  imports  into  any  particular 
country. 

[2]  The  imports  into  any  country  during  any  particular  year,  sometimes 
fall  short  of  the  actual  consumption  in  that  year,  if  a large  stock  from  any 
particular  cause  be  on  hand  at  the  begining,  or  a very  small  stock  at  the 
end  of  the  year.  The  whole  amount  imporled  into  any  place,  and  the 
amount  from  each  country,  differ  a little  occasionally,  by  mistakes  in  copy- 
ing or  misprints  probably.  For  imports  of  1820  and  1821,  into  France, 
see  Quarterly  Review,  (1824-5).  For  those  of  1834,  see  tables  of  French 
Com.  fbr’345  and  for  1810,  Edinburgh  Review,  page  61,  (1829)  which  states, 
those  for  1828-9,  at  80  or  90  millions  of  pounds;  for  1806,  see  London 
Cyclop,  article  “Cotton.”  Baines,  515.  From  1822  to  1832,  see  a table 
in  McCulloch’s  Diet,  page  448,  which  is  given  below  in  bags.  In  1819,  in 
vol.  3,  Diet,  of  Com.  and  Fineince  for  Spain,  page  244,  the  value  of  im- 
ports of  raw  cotton  is  estimated  at  only  $2,000,000,  into  France,  but  it 
must  be  too  low.  Those  for  1833,  and  the  smallest  for  1834  and  for  1835, 
are  from  manuscript.  Annexed  are  the  quantities  in  bales,  and  the  stocks 
on  hand  each  year,  from  1822  lo  1835  inclusive,  from  another  and  similar 
source,  as  to  the  three  last  years  ; the  previous  ones  are  from  McCulloch. 
See  table  T,  note  [2],  as  to  stocks  on  hand  in  England. 


Statement  of  the  general  imports  and  stocks  of  Cotton  in  France  in 
1835,  compared  with  those  of  the  thirteen  preceding  years: 


i Years. 

Imports.  ■ 

Stocks,  Dec.  31. 

1822 

bales 

205,861 

- 

42,545 

1823  . 

u 

169,845 

- 

40,078 

1824 

i'. 

251,074 

- 

47,194 

1825 

u 

204,572 

- 

35.306 

1826 

Ci. 

320.174 

- 

74;479 

1827 

a 

290,617 

- 

85,403 

1828 

u 

206,132 

51,812 

1829 

: U 

242,230 

- 

29.292 

1830 

282,752 

- 

61^260 

1831 

u 

218,393 

- 

35,810 

1832 

a 

259,159 

- 

22,506 

1833 

a 

305,633 

- 

51,753 

1834 

U - 

274,307 

- 

24,407 

1835 

a 

324,425 

- 

40*096 

[3]  See  Pitkins’s  Stat.  page  485. 


[4]  Those  for  Saxony,  Prussia,  and  Trieste,  are  given  from  Pitkins’s 
Statistics,  485.  About  one-third  comes  from  the  United  States,  and  some 
of  it  through  France  and  HoHniid;  from  Brazil  and  the  West  Indies,  one- 
fourth;  from  Egypt  and  Turkey,  one-fifth;  and  from  India,  one-fourth.  See 
mote  8,  below,  and  McCulloch’s  Lict.  442.  In  Saxony  and  Prussia,  the 


[ Doc.  No.  146,  ] 30 

I 

manufacture  of  cotton  cloth  is  considerable,  but  is  chiefly  from  English 
yarn.  See  exports  of  manufactures  from  England,  and  supplement  to 
Encyclop.  Brittanica,  article  -‘cotton.’’  The  spinning  is  slowly  increasing 
by  machinery.  In  1831  Prussia  exported  one-fourth  more  of  cotton  cloths 
than  in  1826,  being  17  millions  of  yards.  Blackwood’s  Magazine,  for 
January,  1836. 

[5]  Of  the  imports  into  Switzerland,  quite  six  millions  pass  in  some 
years  through  France.  Genoa  imported  in  1830,  two  and  one-half  million ; 
in  1831,  four  and  one-tenth  millions  ; 1832,  five  and  one-tenth.  Half  of  this 
probably  goes  to  Switzerland,  and  nearly  half  the  imports  into  Trieste.  (See 
below.)  Switzerland  has  long  imported  cotton,  but  it  has  chiefly  been  spun 
by  the  distaff  Supplement  to  Encyclop.  Brittanica,  “Cotton.”  See  more 
Westminster  Review,  for  April,  1833, 

[6]  Those  into  Spain  were  chiefly  from  provinces  in  America.  1 Diet, 
of  Fin.  and  Com. 

[7]  Except  the  large  sum  for  1831,  and  that  for  1832,  which  are  founded 
on  a table  in  McCulloch,  the  imports  into  China  are  computed  from 
other  writers  on  the  exports  thither  from  India,  with  a small  addition  from 
other  places,  chiefly  islands.  See  tables  D and  F,  and  3 Crawford’s  History. 
Most  of  the  exports  from  India  go  to  China,  except  what  went  to  the  United 
States  formerly,  and  then  and  now  to  England.  Table  G.  It  is  feared 
tliat  they  are  not  usuaily  stated  high  enough.  Supplement  to  Encyclop. 
Brit,  “cotton.” 

[8]  The  imports  into  the  United  States  are  taken  from  official  returns, 
and  have  been  very  fluctuating  in  amount;  they  have  come  chiefly  from 
India.  See  Seybert,  92,  where  he  sa,ys,  that  before  1825  we  consumed  two 
millions  of  pounds  of  it  yearly.  For  a table  of  imports  and  exports  of 
foreign  raw  cotton,  from  1800  to  1814,  see  Seyb.  St.  page  257. 

[9]  Other  countries  of  Europe  than  those  enumerated,  import  consider- 
able quantities  of  raw  cotton  : e.  g.  Holland  and  Belgium,  about  10  or  12 
millions  of  pounds,  of  which,  a part  passes  into  Germany,  and  5 or  6 mil- 
lions of  pounds  is  from  the  United  States.  So  into  Germany  direct  is  im- 
ported at  Trieste  alone,  from  the  United  States  about  4 to  5 millions,  and 
some  from  Egypt  and  Turkey;  in  all,  making  in  1830,  12J  million  of 
pounds;  1831,  19|  million  of  pounds;  and  1832,  25|  million  of  pounds. 
McCulloch,  page  442.  Into  the  Hanse  towns  are  imported  from  here  2 to  6 
millions  of  pounds  more  yearly,  and  about  1 million  of  pounds  to  Russia, 
See.  Sec. , See  exports,  table  F,  note  2.  Russia  imported  into  Petersburg, 
in  all,  1830,  24  million  of  pounds;  1831,  seven-tenths  million  of  pounds; 
T822,  one  and  eight-tenlhs'  million  of  pounds.  In  1834,  Belgium  is  said, 

. by  Mr.  Alexander,  to  have  imported  12f  million  of  pounds  of  raw  cotton. 
It  is  said  in  Westminster  Review,  for  April,  1835,  that  Lombard^r  alone  con- 
sumes four  million  pounds  of  raw  cotton  yearly. 


40 


[ Doc.  No.  146.  ] 
I. 

COTTON,  RAW. 


CluaDtit}^  consumed  and  manufactured  in 


TS 

i 

S , 

France.  1 

■ i 

1 

United  Slates. 

China  and 
India. 

S.  America 
and  Mexico  in- 
cluding Brazil. 

Germany. 

Turkey  and 
Africa. 

”l 

S 

p , 

Xfl 

Prussia.  | 

S 

a 

Years 

lbs. 

. lbs.  . 

lbs. 

Ihs. 

lbs.  ■ 

lbs. 

lbs. 

lbs. 

lbs. 

lbs. 

Millions. 

Millions. 

Millions. 

Millions. 

Alillions. 

Millions. 

Millions. 

Mils.' 

Mils. 

Mils. 

1780 

134  in  the  three  countries. 

1784 

lU 

1789 

1790 

204 

5 

1791 

28 

10 

5i 

285 

50 

15 

52 

2 

2 

60 

1793 

334 

1793 

171 

1794 

23 

1795 

25 

1796 

SI 

1797 

22i 

1798 

31 

18 

1799 

42  . 

101 

1800 

51 

6-1, 

8 TtVI 

1801 

53f 

11 

L 1 0 J 

9 

280 

‘ 45 

-22 

50 

3 ■ 

5 

50 

1802 

564 

15tV 

1803 

51| 

151 

_ 

3 

1804 

66^ 

171 

' 1805 

58f 

184 

11  [^J 

1806 

574 

2U 

1807 

724 

1808 

414 

1809 

874 

1810 

126 

25 

16  [34] 

1811 

891 

23 

17 

270 

48 

25  _ 

48 

5 

C 

50 

1812 

591 

21 

1813 

1814 

524 

1815 

92 

_ 

314 

1816 

884 

1817 

1164 

30  or  26 

1818 

172 

1819 

1321 

\ . 

1 

1820 

142 

44 

1821 

114 

47 

50 

260 

42 

30 

45 

8 

”7 

45 

1822 

120i 

61 

1823 

177 

504 

1824 

131 

75 

_ 

_ 

_ , 

_ 

_ 

_ 

1825 

206 

60 

1826 

1501- 

96 

1827 

2504 

87 

1828 

2081 

61 

1829 

1901 

714 

1830 

255 

871 

l831 

257 

654 

774 

i832 

260 

78 

i833 

2841. 

87 

80  to  85 

242 

35 

36 

42 

10 

20 

40 

}834 

297 

80 

[10] 

7835 

3201 

100 

[0] 

’a] 

[2] 

[3] 

[R 

[U] 

[8] 

[5] 

[^] 

[b] 

[12] 

41 


[ Doc.  No.  146.  ] 

[1]  It  is  important  to  bear  in  mind  that  this  table  does  not  show  the  con- 
sumption of  Qnanufactured  QOiXoTi]  but  only  the  consumption  and  manu- 
facture of  cotton  in  its  rata  state.  Hence  it  includes  the  quantity  of  raw 
cotton  raised  in  cany  country  and  not  exported,  with  the  additional  quan- 
tity imported  and  not  re-exported,  allowing'  the  quantities  on  hand  at  the 
commencement  and  termination  of  each  year  to  be  similar.  Most  of  the 
quantities  include  what  is  used  in  all  ways,  and  made  in  families  as  well  as 
in  manufactories.  It  also  includes  what  is  consumed  in  a raw  state,  which 
is  calculated  to  be,  in  England,  quite  yhth.  The  whole  consumption  in 
Europe,  in  1830,  was  about  337  millions  of  pounds,  (Pitk.  Slat.  484);  or  less 
than  tlie  present  exports  of  the  United  States.  The  consumption  in  manu- 
factures of  raY\^  cotton  in  all  Europe,  in  1803,  was  estimated  at  only  60 
millions  of  pounds.  Dictionary  of  Spanish  Commerce;  and  in  London 
Cyclopedia,  article  ‘‘Cotton,”  computed  at  only  18  .millions  of  pounds  in  all 
Europe,  except  England  and  France.  Till  1773  the  warp  in  the  web  of 
wheat  was  called  cotton  cloth  in  Englaud  was  lineif.  McCulloch,  438. 
(See  table  A,  uote  9.)  See  below,  note  [12]. 

[2]  The  alcove  quantities  for  Enghmd  are  generally  taken  from  Mar- 
shall's tables,  which  are  copied  amd  approved  by  Pitkin.  But  Porter,  in 
his  tables,  makes  the  quaiitity  from  1820  to  1832,  karger  by  5 to  10  millions 
of  })0imd3  per  oimum.  Part  of  the  difference  may  grise  from  including 
Ireland,  and  part  by  sometimes  looking  only  to  tlie  imports,  and  deducting 
the  quantity  re-exported;  when,  in  fact,  the  quantity  on  hand  at  thebegin- 
niiig  and  end  of  the  year,  or  the  actual  quantity  entered  for  home  con- 
sumption, was  essentially  different.  About  10  to  20  millions  of  pounds 
yearly,  or  often  as  little  vJ  gC  /^th  of  what  is  imported  is  re-exported 
from  England.  See  Baines,  347,  and,  in  Marshall  and  Pitkin’s,  schedules 
of  it.  An  estimate  for  1830,  made  in  France,  vras  only  241  millions  of 
pounds;  and  in  Chamber  of  Peers  for  1834,  was  320  millions  of  pounds; 
and  by  1 Smith’s  Com.  Dig.  page  16,  for  1832,  was  288  millions  of  pounds; 
while  the  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer  in  England,  in  his  late  speech, 
states  the  quantity  for  hc-me  consumption  in  1834  was  320  millions  of  pounds, 
and  in  1835, 320^  millions  of  pounds.  But  by  the  annual  liverpool  report  in 
February,  1836,  and  other  sources,  the  consumption  In  1835  is  estimated 
higher  than  1834  b}^  13|-  millions  of  pounds.  Oihers  put  1834  at  303 
millions  of  pounds,  and  1835  at  330  millions.  In  the  Edinburgh  Review, 
page  433,  (1832)  a table  is  given  from  Freeman  cuid  Cook’s  Com.,  of  G.  Brit, 
from  1822  to  1831  inclusive,  which  is  as  follows:  1822,'144yC  millions  of 
pounds;  1823,  147^Vr  -824,  174-^V^  ^825,  169ff_;  1826,  164|-;  1827, 
201^V;  1828,  217|:;  1829,  221f;  1830,  242  ; 1831,  25U.  The  consump- 
tion in  Scotland  separately,  and  in  part  from  English  imports,  exceeded  in 
1835,  32  millions  of  pounds.  Since  1823,  when  changes  occurred  in  the 
duties,  Ireland  has  made  considerable  cotton  cloth;  in  1825,  quite  64  mil- 
lions of  yards.  But  .it  was  clileiiy  from  ^T-ani.  spun  in  England;'  (McCul- 
loch, 444;)  or  from  raw  cotton  exported  there  froin  England;  which,  from 
1821  to  1825,  inclusive,  was  from  i-l  to  24  million's  of  pounds  per  annum. 
See  tables  on  this  in  Smitliers,  150  a.nd  151.-  London  Cyclopedia,  article 
“Cotton.”  In  same  article  see  a table  on  imports  and  consumption,  and 
stock  on  hand,  same  years;  at  the  close  of  1823,  in  England,  it  was  92 
millions  of  pounds.  See  Liverpool  annual  report,  where  the  stock  on  hand 
at  the  close  of  1834  was  594  millions  of  pounds,  and  1835  was  734  mil- 
lions of  pounds.  In  1833  it  was  about  60  millions  of  pounds,  and  liad 


42 


[ Doc.  No.  146.  ] 

diminished  gi’adually  since  1826,  when  it  was  100  millions  of  pounds. 
(Baines,  page  318.)  See  table  H,  note  2. 

[3]  See  on  France,  Baines,  page  525.  But  the  quantity  of  imports  is 
generally  higher  ihan  consumption  by  5 or  6 millions  of  pounds  (unless  the 
stock  on  hand  is  very  large  when  the  last  is  sometimes  highest) ; as,  of  late 
years  especially,  France  re-exports  to  the  neighbouring  countries,  by  land, 
8 or  9 millions  of  pounds  per  annum,  occasionally.  (French  Tables  of 
Commerce,  page  156,  for  1832-3.)  About  of  these  re-exports  are  to 
Switzerland,  and  tlie  rest  to  Sardinia,  Genoa,  &-c.  As  far  back  as  1789 
Frajice  used  but  little  cotton,  except  in  household  manufactures.  Quar. 
Rev.  (1824-5)  page  394.  For  1815,  see  Baines,  page  515,  and  for  1806- 
see  London  Cyclopedia,  article  ‘‘Cotton.’^  In  the  French  Chamber  of  Peers 
it  was  testified,  that  the  consumption  in  1834  was  80  millions  of  pounds. 
In  the  Edinburgh  Review,  page- 432,  (1832)  is  a table  of  raw  cotton  con- 
sumed yearly  in  France  from  1822  to  1831,  in  -which  the  quantity  is 
dilferent  from  1 to  10  or  12  millions  in  difierent  years,  some  less  and  some 
more,  e.  g. 


Years. 
1822  - 

M.  lbs. 

644 

Years. 

1827  - 

M.  lbs. 

84 

1823  - 

- 

- ■ 

5ll 

1828  - 

- 

- 

72 

1824  - 

73-? 

1829  - 

- 

- 

794 

1825  - 

- 

- 

65 

1830  - 

- 

- 

- 75|  ■ 

1826  - 

- 

- 

-844 

1831  - 

- 

- 

- 

Those  in  tlie  table  from  1798  to  ISOG,  and  1817,  are  from  Sup.  to  Ency. 
Brit.  ‘-Cotton.”  See  table  K,  into  what  articles  ‘the  cotton  is  made,  com- 
parative prices,  (Lc. 

[4]  The  large  estimates  for  1790,  1800  and  1$05,  in  the  United  States 
were  made  myself,  and  the  small  ones,  with  that  for  1815,  are  from  a 
report  of  a Committee  of  the  tionse  of  Ilepresenta fives,  February  13,  1816. 
That  for  1810  is  from  Seybert’s  Statistics,  page  92,  and  includes  what  cot- 
ton was  used  in  household  manufactures^  as  do  my  own . Mr.  Gallatin 
made  a similar  one  for  1810.  Pitkin,  487.  Some  estimates  of  earlier 
date,  probably  did  not  include  wdiat  w^as  used  in  dwelling  houses.  Before 
1835  we  cpnsiirned  often  2 millions  of  pounds  a year,  of  Taw  cotton  grown 
abroad,.  (Seyb.-357  and  92) ; and  one-fourteenth  of  the  imports  and  crop  in  the 
United  States  and  England  is  used  or  consumed  in  its  raw  state  without 
being  ma,de  into  either  yarn  or  cloth.  Table  H.  In  Coxe’s  report  on  Man- 
ufactures for  1810,  he  gives  the  manufiictures  of  cotton  in  families  at  five 
millions  of  dollars- value,  and  number  of  yards  16|  millioiis;  which,  at  50 
cents,  the  worth  of  coarse  -cloth  to  each  pound  of  cotton  in  it,  would  make 
8 or  10  millions  of  pounds  used.  Coxe  reports  a few  large  manufacto- 
ries, but  without  any  data  to  show  their  consumption  of  raw  cotton;  but 
sec  table  L,  spindles,  note.  They  probably  used  6 to  8 millions  of  pounds 
more.  In  the  French  Chamber  of  Peers  the  estimate  v/as  only  36  millions 
of  pounds  consumed  in  the  Plnited  States  in  1834  (see  below).  The  whole 
manufacture  of  cotton  in  the  Uiiited  States  must  be  as  large  as  the  esti- 
mate, thong'll  beyond  tlie  usual  computation,  if  we  look  to  tlie  number  of 
spindles,  and  to  the  great  ho'asehoid  manufacture  of  it  in  the  families  ot 
tlie  South  and  West,  tor  all  purposes. 


43 


I Doc.  No.  14S.  ] 

Again  it  is  to  be  deduced  from  the  fact,  that  in  the  great  cheapness  and 
healthfulness  of  cotton  manufactures,  our  population  consume  each  five  to  six 
dollars  worth  of  them  yearly,  for  clothing,  bedding,  sails,  &c.  &c.  which, 
at  a census  of  14  millions,  would  be  from  70  to  84  millions  of  dollars  in 
value.  In  England  the  consumption  is  computed  to  be  only  a fraction  less* 
than  that,  and  in  France  it  is  ^4  per  head.  In  Belgium,  Alexander  com- 
putes it  at  20  francs,  or  a little  over  $3|  per  head.  As  we  import  from 
England,  France  and  Germany,  about  7 millions  of  dollars  of  cotton  man- 
ufactures more  than  we  export,  and  those  articles  are  finer  than  our  own,  it 
is  a fair  estimate,  that  we  manufacture  in  this  country,  from  50  to  70  mil- 
lions of  dollars  worth  of  cotton  manufactures ; which,  at  two  pounds  of 
raw  cotton  or  near  it  per  dollar  of  manufactured  cloth,  on  an  average, 
would,  in  all,  equal  about  100  millions  of  pounds  or  more  of  raw  cotton 
manufactured  here.  (If  this,-  about  5 to  21)  millions  of  dollars  worth  are 
made  in  domestic  form;  and  45  to  50  millions  of  dollars  in  factories  m A. 
D.  1835. 

In  1831,  the  convention  in  New  York  estimated  that  only  26  millions  of 
dollars  worth  of  yarn  and  cloth  were  made  in  manufactories;  and  in  1834, 
Pitlun,  page  484,  estimated  all  manufactures  of  cotton  in  the  United  States 
at  40  millions  of  dollars  value  yearly.  This  would  require  in  1831,  as  in 
the  table,  about  77  milJions  of  pounds  of  raw  cotton,  as  estimated  in  the 
convention  at  New  York,  for  manufactories  in  12  States.  See  McCulloch, 
448,  who  supposes  it  was  a committee  of  Clongress. 

As  our  population  is  increasing  from  1830  to  1840  at  the  rate  of  nearly 
4 per  cent,  or  quite  400,000  persons  per  annum,  and  as  10  to  12  pounds  of 
raw  cotton  are  required  per  head,  and  oiir  imports  of  cotton  manufactures 
do  not  increase,  we  must  add  yearly  to  our  rnarinfactures  about  4 to  5 mil- 
lions more  of  raw  cotton  This  would  make  an  addition  from  the  esti- 
mate in  1830,  so  that  the  whole  consumption  would,  in  1835,  equal  100  mil- 
lions of  pounds  of  raw  cotton.  An  intelligent  merchant  and  manufacturer 
of  the  north  thinks  the  consumption  now  is  106  millions  of  pounds.  Tlie 
quantity  manufactured  here  in  1827  is  estimated  by  Renss,  in  his  tables  on 
American  Trade,  at  only  31  millions  of  pounds,  and  in  1828  at  36  millions 
of  pounds ; but  they  must  be  too  low,  as  are  the  usual  estimates  for  the  last 
three  or  four  years,  at  only  80  and  85  millions  of  pounds,  or  they  must  in- 
clude only  wb.at  was  v/orked  up  iu  factories,  and  the  former  estimate  not  ail 
of  that,  bn  the  great  consum]}tioii  of  cotton  in  household  manufactures  in 
the  United  States,  and  the  opinion  entertained  in  1791  on  the  importance 
and  expectations  of  success  in  the  establishment  of  maiuifactnres  by  ma- 
chinery, and  its  influence  on  tiie  growth  of  cotton  in  the  United  States,  see 
more  in  Hamilton's  report,  A.  D.  1791. 

ft 

[5]  See  Urqiibart  on  Turkey,  page  150  and  179,  that  two  pounds  per  head 
is  manufactured  there ; and  also  that  50  millions  of  dollars  worth  of  mus- 
lins alone  were  yearly  consumed  there  and  in  Africa.  They  v/ere  not  all, 
however,  of  domestic  maimfactnre,  it  is  presumed. 

In  Egypt  it  lias  been  estimated,  that  from  8 to  9 millions  of  pciinds  ot 
the  crop  of  1835  will  be  consumed  in  that  country.  See  table  A,  note  9. 

[6]  This  statement  for  Russia  in  1824  is  from  Porter’s  tables,  545 ; see 
Baines,  406.  In  the  southwestern  parts  of  Russia,  bordering  on  Germany, 
manufactories  and  macliinery  have  been  considerably  introduced,  and  yarn 


44 


[ Doc.  No.  146.  ] 

from  England  is  woven  there,  as  in  India  and  elsewhere,  as  well  as  raw 
cotton,  imported  chiefly  from  the  United  States,  either  direct  or  through 
the  ports  on  the  Baltic.  See  exports  of  raw  cotton,  table  F,  note.  A 
few  others  have  been  established  southeast  of  Moscow.  See  Lon.  Cyclop, 
article  “Cotton,”  and  one  cotton  mill  is  in  operation  in  St.  Petersburgh. 

[7]  Used  up  mostly  into  calicoes,  tapes  and  galloons.  Spain  in  1803. 
1 Dictionary  of  Spanish  Commerce,  63 ; 3 do.  148  ; made  5,640,810  yards 
of  cotton  cloth,  51,900  pair  of  cotton  stockings,  and  2,686,142  yards  of  tape. 

[8]  In  Puebla  in  Mexico,  in  1803,  were  manufactured  IJ  millions  of 
pounds  of  raw  cotton.  (4  Dictionary  of  Spanish  Commerce,  page  178.) 
In  Campeachy  the  manufactures  are  most  extensive.  2 Hist,  of  Colombia. 

[9J  Among  the  other  places  is  Switzerland,  which,  in  1831,  consumed’ 
near  19  millions  of  pounds  of  raw  cotton.  Baines,  526;  see  imports. 
That  country  began  to  use  machinery  for  cotton  in  1798,  but  the  progress 
has  been  slow,  and  the  establishments  are  small,  though  active.  London 
Cyclop,  article  “Cotton.”  Muslins  have  been  made  there,  it  is  said,  a cen- 
tury and  a half.  But  beside  England  and  France,  the  cotton  spun  in  the 
rest  of  Europe  m 1823  was  estimated  at  only  18  millions  of  pounds. 
London  Cyclop,  article  “Cotton.”  See  table  K,  note.  In  1834,  it  was 
estimated  by  Mr.  Alexander,  that  Belgium  consumed  12f  millions  of  pounds 
of  raw  cotton.  See  table,  exports  of  manufactures  and  notes. 

[10]  The  statements  for  1833,  1821,  1811, 1801.,  and  1791,  are  generally 
computations  made  from  other  data  as  to  the  crops  in  the  different  countries 
named,  which  v/ere  grown  and  not  exported,  and  the  quantities  of  raw  cot- 
ton imported  into  each : beyond  this,  they  are  rather  conjectures  than  esti- 
mates, founded  on  very  satisfactory  facts. 

[11]  The  quantities  computed  to  be  manufactured  in  India  and  China  are 
very  large;  but,  perhaps,  they  are  below  rather  than  above  the  truth.  Sec 
Supplement  to  Ency.  Brit,  article  “Cotton,”  and  tables  A and  F on  growth 
of  cotton  and  exports.  In  the  Indian  islands  most  of  their  raw.  cotton  is 
made  up,  though  a little  is  exported  to  China.  3 Crawford's  History,  350. 


[12]  A table  is  annexed  of  the  consumption  of  raw  cotton  in  all  Europe, 
from  1831  to  1835,  inclusive,  compiled  by  Lambert  & Co.  of  Liverpool, 
and  distinguishing  the  estimated  portion  of  it  from  this  country. 

Consimvption  of  cotton  in  Europe^  reduced  to  bales  of  300  pounds. 


1831,  bags 

1832,  “ - 

1833,  “ - 

1834,  “ - 

1835,  “ - 


1,272,176,  of  which 
1,372,079, 

1,409,786,  “ 

1,502,559,  “ 

1,581,501. 


928,520  American. 

- 1,015,280  “ 

- 1,066,240  “ 

- 1,205.043 

- 1.254,586 


45- 


[ Doc.  No.  146.  ] 

K. 

COTTON,  MANUFACTURES  OF. 


(V 


1789 

1790 

1791 
1T92 

1793 

1794 

1795 
179G 

1797 

1798 

1799 

1800 
1801 
1802 
1883 

1804 
1365 

1805 

1807 

1808 

1809 

1810 
1811 
1812 

1813 

1814 

1815 

1816 

1817 

1818 

1819 

1820 
1821 
1822 

1823 

1824 

1825 

1826 

1827 

1828 

1829 

1830 

1831 
3832 

1833 

1834 

1835 


✓ 

Whole  value  of,  yearly,  in — 

Capital  employed  in  manufacturing  by 

machmery  in — 

England. 

France. 

United  States. 

England. 

France, 

United  States, 

Dollars, 

Dollars, 

Dollars. 

Dollars, 

Dollars. 

Dollars. 

Millions. 

Millions. 

Millions. 

Millions. 

Millions. 

Millions. 

1 

1 

1 

j 

• 24 

1 

i 

40 

j 

i 

m \ 

i 1 

• 

\ 

\ 

72 

i ' i 

j 

355 

148  to  190 

* 

■ (, 

171 

mi 

“ 1 

1 ^ 

- . 

1 

' 1 

i m i 

i 

40|-  OF  62 

' *-  ' i 

216 

144 

U ■ 

1 

160 

Uk 

< 178  ) 

\ 

p60  M 

Uii 

1 (149)  1 

\ 

j 

1 

1601 

62  1 

250 

j 

- i 

; 45  to  5® 

185 

1 80 

(13 

m \ 

! 

1 

1 m 

[ 

m 

i 

m 

1 m m 

46 


[ Doe.  No.  146.  ] 

[1]  The  values  in  England  in  the  tables  are  taken,  for  1834,  from 
McCulloch  and  Aiken,  Edin.  Rev.  472,  (1835,)  and  Baines,  412 ; for  1833, 
in  1st  line,  from  Pebrier  on  Eng.  page  314 ; for  2d  line,  for  1827,  from 
Edin.  Rev.  page  22,  (1827.)  The  first  edition  of  McCulloch  agreed  with 
Pebrier,  but  in  the  second  edition  he  lowered  the  amount.  Baines,  398, 
and  note.  That  for  1823  was  by  Mr.  Huskisson.  Baines,  399.  That  for 
1824  is  from  Supplement  to  Eiieyclop.  Brit.  “ Cotton.”. 

In  McCnlloclfs  Dicky  of  Com.  and  Baines,  406,  and  Pitkin,  486,  it  is 
computed  that  the  present  value  of  the  cotton  manufacture  equals  about 
twice  the  amount  of  it  exported.  It  is  said  that  only  37  per  cent,  is  con- 
sumed of  what  is  made.  Aiken’s  Lectures.  See  exports.  In  1766  Eng- 
land made  about  three  times  as  much  as  she  exported  of  cotton  goods, 
though  Edin.  Rev.  page  166,  (1830,)  says  she  then  made  only  one  million 
of  dollars  worth.  Do.  page  18,  (1827.)  The  estimate  for  1815  is  in 
Edinb.  Encyclop.  art.  “ Cotton.”  The  items  for  computing  the  value  of 
the  annual  manufacture,  are  given  in  Edin.  Rev.  (1827)  page  22,  and  in 
Edin.  Rev.  page  472,  (1835,)  and  in  Fames,  412. 

In  Scotland  alone  it  is  said  the  manufacture  of  cotton  in  1835  equalled 
in  value  11^^-  millions  of  dollars  ; but  in  1832,  was  estimated  by  Kennedy  at 
.12J,  though  prices  higher  ; and  in  Ireland  at  millions  of  dollars.  Baines, 
409,  thinks  the  exports  are  nearly  that  before  named  from  Scotland,  and 
tile  manufacture  double.  Page  410. 

[2]  The  values  in  France  for  1817  are  too  high,  and  that  for  1828  too 
low,  it  is  believed ; but  were  extracted,  the  first  from  2 Chaptal  on  French 
Industry,  page  150,  and  Sup.  to  Encyclop.  Brit.  “ Cotton,”  and  the  last  from 
some  author  not  remembered.  Estimated  at  111  millions  of  dollars  by 
Minerel,  but  too  high.  Baines,  521. 

Those  for  1832  and  4 are  estimates  made  on  the  number  of  spindles,  &c. 

[3]  The  value  for  1830,  in  the  United  States,  is  from  N.  Y.  Conven.  and 
includes  but  12  States  and  no  household  goods,  otherwise  it  would  equal 
40  millions.  Pitkin,  483. 

The  whole  value  in  1835  is  my  estimate  from  the  quantity  of  cotton 
worked  up,  &c.  Pitkin,  482. 

The  v^^luo  for  1815  is  by  a Committee  of  Congress,  and  is  confined  to 
croods  made  in  factories.  The  wliole  value  of  cotton,  woollen  and  flax 
rnanufivctures  in  1810,  was  computed  at  only  40  millions  of  dollars~the 
value  of  cotton  alone  in  1830. 

[4|  The  value  of  manufactured  cottons,  when  the  quantity  of  raw  cotton 
in  them  is  the  same,  difiers  greatly  according  to  different  periods  of  time  in 
the  same  country,  and  according  to  the  quality  of  the  raw  material,  and  the 
machinery  used,  and  tlie  skill  employed.  See  table  M,  note  [2]. 

Thus  in  Phigland,  in  20  years  after  Arkrighfs  invention  in  spinning, 
raaniifaetiired  cottons  fell  nearly  eight-ninths  of  their  former  price.  Every 
ten  years  since,  some  have  computed  their  fall  in  price  as  equal  to  50  per 
cent.  In  the  American  Encyclopedia,  article  “Cotton,”  it  is  said,  that,  from 
1815  to  1829,  the  coarse  cloths  fell  two  thirds.  See  in  Pebriers  views  of 
Enoland,  page  343,  a table  slioAving  the  fall  there  at  different  periods.  See 
table  M,  note  [3],  on  ofiicial  and  real  prices  at  different  periods.  In  1810, 
yarn,  on  an  average,  was  v/orth  ,12-|  per  pound.  Report  by  Gallatin.  Seo 


47 


[ Doc.  No.  146.  ] 

prices  ©f  other  articles  in  his  report,  in  1S14  it  was  estimated  under  $1  per 
pound  by  Cox.  In  1832  it  was  said  that  the  cost  of  making  most  species 
of  yarn  had  been  reduced  since  1812  about  a half,  and  that  of  weaving  by 
power  looms,  <fcc.  still  more.  See  Edin.  Rev.  427,  (1832,)  a list  of  prices. 
Some  of  the  diliereiices  as  to  the  whole  value  of  manufactured  goods  spring 
from  not  adyerting  to  all  the  fall  in  prices,  though  the  yarn  and  cloth  have 
increased  in  quantity.  See  a table  of  reduction  in  prices  of  spinning.  In 
1786  it  cost  10^.  per  pound  of  No.  100,  in  1824  only  8d.  or  only  16  cents 
instead  of  240  cents.  Supplement  to  Cyclop.  Brit.  Cotton.” 

[5]  The  best  cotton  goods  are  supposed  to  be  made  in  Switzerland,  where 
the  skill  and  machinery  are  good,  and  the  climate  congenial.  But  the  raw 
material,  being  carried  so  far  by  land,  is  expensive,  and  the  mani^cturer 
cannot  compete  with  England,  though  20  per  cent,  cheaper  than  in  France. 
Baines,  524. 

In  France  many  fine  goods  are  made  by  skill  and  experience ; but  tlie 
machinery  is  poorer,  and  costs  more.  Edinb.  Rev.  page  61,  (1829.)  Hence 
the  prices  in  those  two  countries  " the  cloth  made  Ifom  a pound  of  raw 
cotton,  exceed  on  an  average,  50  cents,  while  in  England  they  are  about 
50  cents,  and  in  tiie  Uuited  States  are  now  somewhat  less.  In  1806  the 
cotton  was  made  chiefly  into  velveteens,  nankeens,  crapes,  muslins,  c^c. 
See  at  length  London  Cyclop,  art.  Cotton.” 

But  in  1810  our  cotton  cloths  made  in  houses  and  manufactories,  on  an 
average,  were  estimated  at  33  cents  per  yard  in  Coxe’s  Tables,  page  10. 
The  prices  are  now  lower,  notwithstanding  the  introduction  so  exteirsively 
of  flner  cloths  and  of  printing  calicoes. 

We  make  more  coarse  and  substantial  cloths  of  cotton  now  than  Eng- 
land, and  they  can  be  afforded  cheaper  by  two  or  three  cents  per  yard.  They 
are  in  greater  demand  abroad.  Am.  Quart.  Kev.  (1834)  page  25i  h 3 Par- 
liamentary Reports,  (1833)  page  332.  We  put  more  staple  into  them,  the 
raw  material  being  cheaper  here.  But  the  English  laces,  being  made  chiefly 
of  sea  island  cotton,  with  a very  little  silk,  enhance  the  value  of  each  pound 
to  over  $5  ; and  the  whole  manufacture  of  it  equals  nine  millions  of  dollars 
per  annum,  (McCulloch,  page  744.)  and  30f  millions  of  square  yards. 

The  coarse  India  cottons  are  made  of  the  worst  materials  and  less  smooth, 
being  chiefly  spun  by  hand,  and  tb.e  raw  material  poorer.  Baines.  But 
the  thread  so  spun  is  softer  and  the  cloth  more  durable.  Report  on  Affairs  of 
India,  (1832,)  appendix,  page  310.  But  the  power  to  spin  a fine  thread 
tiiere  has  lieen  carried  almost  as  far  as  in  England,  See  table  L,  note  [5],. 

ON’  CAPITAL. 

16]  Capital  invested  is  computed  on  very  different  principles  and  data  by 
different  persons,  and  the  price  of  machinery  has  of  late  fallen  much  per 
spindle.  See  notes  on  spindles.  In  the  computation  of  capital  in  manu- 
facturing cotton,  there  is  generally  included  only  what  is  in  factories. 

[7]  The  real  capital  has  doubtless  increased  in  England  since  1827, 
tlioiigli  in  the  table  there  is  an  apparent  diminution.  I’hat  and  other  dif- 
ferences often  arise  from  the  estimates  being  made  by  different  persons,  and, 
on  data  somewhat  unlike,  as  well  as  from  changes  in  the  value  of  ma- 
chinery, and  in  its  increase. 

Tire  computation  for  1827  is  by  the  Edin.  Rev.  page  22,  1827  : that  for 
1830  is  by  some  writer  not  rioted ; that  for  1831  in  1st  edition  of 


48 


[ Doc.  No.  146.  ] 

McCulloch’s  Eict’y,  Pitk.  Stat.  486,  for  1833,  by  Pebrier,  page  315,  in  1st 
line,  and  m 2d  line  by  Baines,  415,  and  Edin.  Rev.  page  472,  (1835,)  and 
2d  edition  of  McCulloch  ; and  for  1834  by  Aiken,  who  places  buildings 
and  machinery,  or  the  fixed  capital  at  only  about  half  the  value  of  that  in 
Edin.  Rev.  (1827)  page  22,  or  at  about  97  millions  of  dollars  instead  of  181 
millions. 

The  ratio  adopted  for  1827  was,  capital  in 

buying  raw  material  - - c€  9 millions,  and  for  1834  £ 4 

Capital  in  paying  wages  - - 19  “ 10 

Capital  in  mills,  machinery,  looms, 
shop,  &c.  - - - 37  “ “ 20 

£65  “ “ £34 

So  Kennedy  in  Baines,  413,  differs  again,  making  fixed  capital  only  about 
15  million  pounds,  &c.  The  present  value  of  capital  invested  in  buildings, 
water  privileges,  and  machinery,  is  often  less  than  their  original  cost,  and  is 
another  source  of  difference. 

[8]  The  capital  in  1815,  for  the  United  States,  is  computed  by  a Committee 
of  Congress,  and  is  not  any  too  high.  Report,  Feb.  13, 1816.  That  in  1830  is 
by  the  New  York  Convention,  and  is  correct  according  to  the  number  of  spin- 
dles compared  with  England  and  her  capital,  and  is  in  fact  at  40  million  dol- 
lars for  fixtures  alone,  and  about  22  million  dollars  for  the  rest.  Not  too  high. 
That  for  1832  is  from  Reuss  on  Am.  Trade,  page  274.  The  whole  capital 
here,  in  proportion  to  each  spindle,  is  more  for  mills  and  machinery  together 
than  in  England,  and  more  for  wages.  Hers  is  sometimes  higher  for  addi- 
tional machinery  and  workmen  for  finer  kinds  of  manufacture.  The  average 
value  of  her  capital  to  each  spindle,  as  computed  by  me  for  1835,  would  be 
about  $20  to  each ; which  would,  on  the  same  dfoa,  make  our  capital  then 
equal  to  $35  per  spindle.  But  in  the  New  York  Convention,  in  1830,  are 
given  the  details  of  their  estimafos,  and  the  buildings  and  machinery  alone 
cost  here,  on  their  computation,  near  $35  per  spindle,  and  it  requires  to  pay 
wages,  furnish  raw  cotton  and  other  materials,  superintendence,  <fcc.  quit© 
$11  more  per  spindle,  making  the  wliole  $46  each,  or  now  near  80  million 
dollars  capital.  In  1810,  it  was  estimated  that  $60  per  spindle  wa.s  necessary. 
See  Coxe  and  Gallatin.  It  is  now  $60  in  some  factories  at  Lowell.  This 
agrees  nearly  with  the  older  computations  in  England ; and  as  goods  become 
finer,  and  machinery  still  cheaper,  in  the  United  States,  the  approximation 
will  be  still  closer.  See  table  L,  note.  But  another  striking  cause  of  dif- 
ference arises  from  the  kind  of  goods  made  here  compared  with  England^ 
requiring  there  less  capital  for  machinery,  looms,  6cc.  Besides,  that  th© 
spindles  there  are  cheaper,  and  le^s  capital  is  needed  for  workmen,  when  th© 
immlx;r  of  spindles  is  the  same,  to  tend  }>ower  looms,  color  and  stamp  dfes, 
in  proportion,  than  in  the  United  Stat^.  Because  there,  in  1833,  only  a littW 
over  one-half  of  tiie  cotton  spun  was  made  into  cloth  in  the  factories,  or  only 
76^  millions  of  poundv,  out  of  145  millions  of  pounds.  Tiie  rest  was  sold  oV 
exported  as  yarn  and  thread.  See  Baines,  607.  And  in  another  estimate, 
one-half  the  exports  are  in  yarn.  See  table  M,  note  [1].  Baines,  409. 
While  in  1830,  in  the  United  States,  the  computation  ©t  yarn  sold,  com- 
pared with  cloth  made,  was  not  one-tenth  of  the  w^eight.  In  1810  it 
exceeded  one-ludf  Gallatie.  Another  cause  of  Uie  difftrenc©  is,  perhaps, 


49 


[ Doc.  No.  146.  ] 


that  much  of  the  fine  weaving  of  ginghanis,  muslins  and  mixed  cloths  there 
is  done  in  hand  looms  not  "belonging  to  the  factories.  See  Baines,  418, 
In  the  computation  before  stated,  of  the  capital  per  spindle  for  1830,  in  the 
United  States,  it  may  be  useful  to  exhibit  it  in  another  form.  According  to 
Pitk.  page  482. 

The  capital  in  mills  and  fixtures  was  - - - millions. 

Do.  in  other  machinery  about  _ - - 4_4_  u 


Capital  in  mills  and  machinery  - - - . 

Which  at  1^^  millions  of  spindles  is  about  $35  to  each. 
Capital  fioating  or  circulating,  in  paying  wages,  was  near 
Capital  circulating,  in  buying  stock,  &c.  - 


45  millions. 


12  millions. 
2 - 


14 


About  $11  more  per  spindle,  or  $46  for  every  spindle. 

The  valuation  placed  on  machinery  should  now  be  less,  though  most 
of  that  in  use  cost  high.  See  spindles.  The  English  proportion  now" is  about 
$12  capital  per  spindle  invested  in  mills,  machinery,  and  all  fixtures  con- 
nected, or  not  much  over  one-third  the  proporiion  here.  But  it  is  about  $8 
to  each  spindle  in  the  floating -capital,  for  wages,  stock,  &c.  or  over  two- 
thirds  the  proportion  here.  More  of  their  fine  spinning  is  also  done  on  the 
mule  spindle,  which  costs  but  little  over  half  what  the  throstle  spindle  does, 
and  wiiich  last  has  been  equally  as  much  used  here  as  the  other,  and  of 
late  years,  it  is  believed,  far  more  than  the  other.  In  1831,  in  England, 
in  Lancashire,  the  number  of  mule  spindles  was  more  than  12  times  that  of 
the  throstle.  Baines,  209 — note.  Her  capital  in  mills  and  machinery  alone 
is  said  not  to  exceed  $4,16  to  each  spindle.  See  Baines,  414  and  368, 
But  that  must  exclude  Avater  privileges  and  steam  engines,  probably,  anfl 
all  looms,  out-houses,  shops,  &c.  and  refer  chiefly  to  the  mule  spindle. 

In  1824  it  was  considered  in  England  tliat  we  employed  too  many  per- 
sons and  too  much  capital  per  spindle.  Sup.  to  Cyclop.  Brit.  art.  Cotton,” 

[9]  The  advantages  of  different  countries  for  the  cotton  manufacture^ 
-depend,  in  a great  measure,  on  their  natural  condition — long  habits  and 
laws.  England  is  superior  to  most  in  the  abundance  and  cheapness  of 
iron  for  machinery;  in  coal  for  warming  buildings  and  moving  steam 
power  ; in  suitable  climate  ; ingenuity,  experience,  and  skill  of  mechanics 
from  great  division  of  labor,  &c. ; in  greater  commerce  to  find  best  markets  ; 
capital  at  Ioav  interest,  and  wages  not  high ; and  property  secure.  But 
taxes  there  and  raw  material  are  high,  and  living  is  more  expensive  than 
in  some  other  places.  Edinb.  Rev.  (1835)  page  466.  McCulloch,  446.  A 
great  increase  is  supposed  to  have  taken  place  the  past  year  in  erecting 
cotton  factories  in  England, 

The  United  States^  by  numerous  and  cheap  water  falls,  have  a good 
substitute  for  steam,  and  will  soon  have  coal  as  low  for  warming ; have 
etpual  ingenuity,  and  probably  now  superior  merit  in  machinery  ; but  iron 
and  cotd  are  dearer,  and  raw  material  and  living  both  lower,  and  property  um 
secure ; wages  and  capital  higher ; much  less  taxation ; and  a protective 
tariff.  It  is  said  in  Amer.  Cyclop,  art.  “ Cotton,”  that  the  introduction  of 
tjie  power  loom  in  181i  has  given  great  permanency  and  prosperity  to  mir 


50 


[ Doc.  No.  146.  ] 

cotton  establishments.  See  table  L,  notes  to  spindles,  and  notes  above  in 
this  table  for  something  more  on  England  and  United  States. 

As  to  France,  Switzerland,  India,  &c.  it  is  not  necessary  nor  convenient 
here  to  enter  into  details  beyond  what  is  stated  in  other  parts  of  these  notes. 
But  it  may  deserve  notice,  that  the  increase  in  the  use  of  raw  cotton  has  been 
at  a much  more  rapid  rate  in  England  than  in  France.  Edin.  Rev.  (1832) 
page  433.  See  Baines,  525  and  ’6,  and  515,  on  these  points.  Sec  table  I — 
note.  See  below,  note  [11.] 

The  vaiue  of  cotton  manufactures  in  England  is.  comparatively,  equal 
to  two-thirds  of  all  her  public  revenue,  and  to  nearly  all  her  exports  of 
other  articles.  Table  M,  note  3.  In  1797,  the  cotton  manufacture,  it  is 
said  in  Seybert,  page  92.  took  the  lead  of  any  other  in  England.  But  in 
1816  she  consumed  no  more  yaw  cotton  than  the  United  States  do  now. 

[10]  The  capital  of  France  invested  in  cotton  manufactures,  is  given  for 
only  one  year,  and  computed  at  a medium  betweei\  ^20  per  spindle,  as  in 
England,  and  $46  per  spindle  in  the  United  States.  As  I have  no  French 
estimates  on  this  subject  beyond  the  data  given  in  Baines  and  other  authors, 
as  to  the  number  of  spindles  merely,  and  their  cost  at  different  periods,  the 
computation  has  not  been  extended  to  other  years.  Baines,  517  and  518, 
Sfives  estimates  showing  that  France  requires  28  per  cent,  more  capital  than 
England  to  produce  the  same  manufactures,  according  to  some  persons, 
and  according  to  others  75  per  cent.  But  Doct.  Bowring  estimates  the 
difference  at  about  30  to  40  per  cent.  Baines,  520. 

[11]  The  subject  of  wages  in  the  different  kinds  of  manufacture,  and  in 
• different  countries,  has  not  been  discussed  in  detail.  But  see  on  it  Wade’s 

Hist,  of  Mid’g  Classes,  570  to  576.  It  may  be  interesting  to  many  to  know 
that  the  average  wages  in  1832,  in  .the  United  States,  of  all  employed  in  a 
cotton  factory,  were  about  14^.  11c?.  sterling  per  week;  in  England,  about 
10.?.,  sometimes  12^. ; in  France,  only  5s.  6d. ; in  Switzerland,  4^.  5d. ; in 
Austria,  3s.  9d. ; in  Saxony,  3^.  6c?. ; and  in  India  from  Is.  to  25.  per  week. 
Ditto,  page  576,  and  Westminster  Review  for  April,  1833.  In  Niles’  Re- 
gister, November,  1817,  page  156,  it  is  said  to  be  only  two  cents  per  day  in 
India  3 but  that  is  probably  too  low. 


[ Doc.  No.  146.  ] 5L 


L.— COTTON,  MANUFACTORIES  OP, 


Persons  employed,  connected  with  factories 
chiefly,  number  of, 

Spindles  employed  in  factories,  number  of, 

f 

Years. 

In  England 

U.  States. 

France. 

\ 

In  England 

U.  States. 

France. 

Switzerla’d. 

1750 

20,000 

1760 

16,000'? 

1770 

30,000 

- 

1784 

80,000 

1787 1 

'162, 000  to 
260,000 

1789  ^ 

_ 

49,500 

1790 

_ 

70 

1791 

• 

1792 

1793 

1794 

1795 

1796 

1797 

1798 

1799 

1800 

1801 

1802 

• 

1803 

. 

1804 

1805 

_ 

4,500 

1806 

_ 

120,000 

81,000 

1807 

_ 

8^000 

1808 

1809 

800*000 '] 

_ 

— 

31,000 

1810 

qe. 

— 

87,000 

Millions. 

1811 

_ 

5 

80,000? 

query. 

Millions. 

1812 

_ 

_ 

4H 

_ 

1 

1813 

^query. 

1814 

_ 

_ 

_ 

122,646 

1815 

_ 

100,000 

130,000 

1816 

_ 

6f 

' - 

1817 

_ 

_ 

6f 

1818 

_ 

1_2_ 

1819 

1820 

_ 

220,000 

1821 

_ 

230,000 

1822 

427,000 

1823 

1824 

_ 

61 

_ 

259,200 

1825 

query. 

800,000 

1826 

1827  1 

705,000  to 
1,000,000 

Millions. 

1828 

_ 

_ 

I- 

_ 

li  to  1 

1829 

_ 

_ 

7 

1830 

- 

5 179,000 ) 
1 175,146  5 

- 

- 

U 

1831 

_ 

200,000 

200,000 

Ih  to  8i 

1832  1 

1,200,000 

_ 

n 

1833  i 

1,500,000 

1834  1 

_ 

600,000 

1835  1 

li 

I 

[4] 

[5]"  [6] 

[9] 

[8] 

.1 

[2] 

[11]  [12] 

[10] 

52 


[ Doc.  No.  146.  ] 

[1]  The  early  computations  of  the  number  of  persons  employed  are 
very  loose  and  contradictory.  That  for  1750,  is  from  Smithers’s  History  of 
Liverpool,  page  154  ; that  for  1760  and  17  70,  by  Edinburgh  Review  (1827); 
for  1784,  by  Smith,  and  Baines,  218.  The  more  recent  estimates  for  1809, 
are  too  high,  and  are  by  Seyb.  page  92,  and  for  1827  in  2d  line,  arc  from 
Edin.  Rev.  page  13,  (1827,)  and  page  427,  (1835)  and  McCulloch,  443,  and 
Baines  431.  The  last  make  the  actual  laborers  only  900,000.  As  the  cloth 
made  is  finer,  more  persons  are  required  to  a given  number  of  spindles.  So 
if  it  is  stamped  or  printed  (see  below).  It  is  computed,  that  in  10  years  after 
machinery  was  introduced  into  the  nianufacture  of  cotton,  the  number  of  per- 
sons employed  in  it,  was  still  augmented  tenfold;  some  have  said  forty  times, 
which  is  loo  high.  But  if  no  maciiineiy  Jrad  been  used  in  j 826,  beyond  what 
was  used  in  1760,  it  would  have  required  from  42  to  53  millions  of  persons 
to  perform  what  was  then  done  in  the  cotton  manufacture.  (Q.uar.  Review, 
1826  and  Brownring’s  Great  Britain,  pages  232.)  They  say  one  man 
now  equals  by  machinery,  120  in  A.  D.  1780,  or  200  according  to  Kennedy 
cited  in  Edinburgh  Review,  page  18,  (1827,)  Smithers  127  ; or  in  1815,  one 
equals  from  40  to  60.  Edinburgh  Encyclop.  ^-cotton.”  In  1633,  Pebre]-,  page 
314,  estimates,  that  80  millions  of  persons  would  be  needed  in  the  cotton 
manufactories  without  machinery.  See  on  some  of  above,  London  Ency- 
clopedia, article,  ^‘cotton,’’  printed  1829,  and  in  Edinburgh  Cyclopedia, 
article  cotton,  (1815)  where  the  number  of  persons  employed  is  estimated 
at  one  million  ; but  too  high.  See  below,  note  [11.] 

[2]  In  Spain,  in  1803,  it  v/as  computed,  that  6,792  persons  were  employed 
in  the  manufacture  of  cotton  goods.  1 Dictionary  of  Spanish  Comi.  65;  and 
in  Sudtzerland,  in  1831,  about  28,000  persons.  West.  Rev.  for- April,  1833. 

[3]  The  number  in  France  for  1834,  is  from  Baines,  page  621.  Many 
there  engage  in  agriculture  a part  of  the  yea*r  as  Jii  India.  The  number 
for  1806,  is  from  data  in  I.ondon  Cyclopedia,  article  ‘‘  cotton,”  and  sup- 
plement to  Eiicy.  Brit:  “ cotton”  where  in  22  departments  the  number  of 
persons  engaged  in  spinning  is  said  to  be  28,460,  and  in  weaving  31,107 
persons,  arid  the  spindles  800,724.  These  must  include  most  in  France,  and 
the  other  persons  incidentally  engaged  must  be  alniost  double  to  constitute 
the  recent  number  of  6 or  7 persons  to  a spindle  in  makiiig  hire  and  colored 
cloths.  The  number  for  1831,  is  from  the  West.  Rev.  April,  1833,  page  397. 

[4]  In  the  United  States,  the  estimate  for  1815,  was  made  by  a commit- 
tee of  the  House  of  Representatives,  February  13,  1816.  The  number 
includes  all  engagedin  the  manufacUn  e,  or  in  making  the  mills,  machinery, 
&c.  and  not  those  alone  inside  of  the  mills.  These  last  in  1832,  were  com- 
puted by  Reuss,  on  Am.  Trade,  page  274,  at  only  28,683,  but  by  McCulloch’s 
Dictionary,  page  448,  at  57.466.  In  1830,  by  lNe\v  ATrk  Convention,  at 
57,520,  arid  dependants  at  117,  626  persons,  or  175,146  in  all,  as  in  2d  line 
of  the  table, 

[5]  Spindles.  'Bhe  spindle  is  the  most  convenient  article  in  the  cot- 
ton manufacture,  by  which  to  calculate  the  extent  ol  it  The  power  of  any 
one  establishment,  its  cost,  the  number  of  persons  employed,  the  quantity 

raw  cotton  cousumcR,  the  yarn  or  cloth  made,  and  most  other  impor 


53 


[ Doc.  No.  146.  ] 

tant  results  can,  by  the  help  of  a few  general  data,  be  very  nearly  deduced 
from  the  number  of  spindles. 

On  the  great  gain  in  substituting  for  the  distaff  and  the  spindle  used  by 
hand,  the  present  machinery  for  spinning  and  other  processes  to  complete 
the  manuhicture  of  cotton,  whether  moved  by  horse  power,  water  or  steam,- 
some  illustrations  have  already  been  given  in  the  first  note  to  this  table, 
and  in  table  K. 

With  a view  to  furnish  a few  more  details,  which  may  possess  some  useful- 
ness and  interest,  it  may  be  remarked  on  the  power  of  the  spindle,  that  by 
improvements  in  machinery  it  is  said  that  one  now  sometimes  revolves  8,001) 
times  in  a minute,  instead  ot  only  50  times  as  formerly,  and  that  one  will 
now  spin  on  an  average  from  one-sixth  to  one  third  more  than  it  did  20  years 
ago,  (below,  note  12).  Indeed,  in  1834,  it  is  said  that  one  person  can  spin 
more  than  double  the  weight  of  yarn  in  a given  time  than  he  could  in  1829. 
Senior’s  Outline  of  Political  Econ.  page  198.  The  quantity  of  raw  cotton 
spun  by  one  spindle,  depends  of  course,  on  the  fineness  of  the  thread  and 
quality  of  the  machinery.  In  England,  where  a considerable  portion  of  the 
the  yarn  is  finer  the  average  is  about  84  ounces  weekly,  or  from  27  to  281bs. 
yearly : (McCulloch,  441  note,)  while  the  average  in  the  United  States  is 
about  50  pounsris  yearly,  of  yarn  number  20  and  25  in  fineness  and  about 
26  pounds,  of  number  35  and  40.  In  1808  the  average  was  computed  at 
45  pounds  per  spindle,  of  cotton  yielding  38  pounds  of  yarn.  (Report  to 
Congress,  1810.)  The  difference  in  weight  between  the  cotton  and  the 
yarn  by  loss  from  dirt  and  waste  is  usually  estimated  from  one  twelfth  to 
one-eighth.  . (Baines,  376)  At  Lowell  100  pounds  of  cotton  yields  89 
pounds  of  cloth,  (Lowell  Statistics,  1836,)  though  the  average  here  used 
to  be  estimated  at  only  85  pounds,  (Niles  S.egister,  (1827)  page  211,)  when 
cotton  rvas  not  so  well  cleaned  and  machinery  less  perfect.  One  spindle 
at  Lowell  produces  through  looms  &c.  on  an  average  cloth, 

daily ; but  this  result  must  differ  greatly  with  the  fineness  of  the  thread, 
excellence  of  the  looms,  rvidth  of  the'clPth,  (fee. 

In  1830,  it  was  computed,  that  37  spindles  were  necessary  to  supply  one 
loom : though  in  1827,  at  Lowell,  the  actual  proportion  was  only  26,  at 
Exeter  in  1831,  it  was  29,  and  now  at  Lov/ell  it  is  31.  The  number  of 
looms,  in  England  in  1 832  was  only  1 to  about  40  spindles,  so  miicli  more 
3mm  is  made  and  not  woven  there,  (McCulloch  441)  and  those  were  mostly 
hand  looms.  But  in  1834,  the  number  of  them  rvas  about  100,000  power 
looms  and  250,000  hand  looms  or  in  all,  about  1 to  30.  (Baines,  page  237.) 
One  loom  formerly  v/ove  daily,  about  20  y:  .rds  of  cloth  of  the  ordinary  seven- 
eighths  width,  more  of  the  26  inches  in  width  used  for  calicoes,  and  less  of 
the  5 quarters  wide.  The  average  now  is  Lorn  30  to  40  yards  of  No.  20.  At 
Lowell  in  1835,  it  was  38  to  49  yards  of  No.  14,  and  25  to  30  yards  of  No. 
30.  It  requires  from  4 to  5 yards  of  cloth  of  Nos.  20  to  25  yarn,  to  weigh 
one  pound,  and  5 to  6 yards  of  Nos.  36  and  40. 

The  power  of  the  spindle,  as  connected  with  the  number  of  persons 
actually  employed  in  factories,  is,  that,  in  making  plain  cloth  of  ordinary 
width  and  fineness,  one  person  is  needed  to  conduct  all  the  business  from 
. the  raw  cotton  to  the  finishing  of  the  clofli  for,  every  20  spindles.  If  the 
cloth  be  colored , and  printed  or  stamped,  one  person  will  be  wanted  for 
every  -7  spindles.  This  would  be  about  250  persons  for  all'  purposes  in  a 
factory  of  5,000  spindles,  making  plain  brown  cloth.  One  person  can 
manage  from  2 to  3 power  looms. 


54 


[ Doc.  No.  146.  ] 

The  proportion  of  spindles  to  a factory  was  formerly  very  small,  both 
in  England  and  this  country.  Before  1806,  it  was  only  one  or  two 
hundred  sometimes,  and  seldom  exceeded  1,000.  Soon  after  that  some 
mills  were  built,  containing  4,000  spindles.  The  average  in  new  mills  is 
now  from  five  to  6,000.  In  Lowell,  1836,  in  27  mills  they  have  129,828 
spindles,  or  a little  under  5,000  to  each,  though  they  print,  &c.  in  some. 

A factory  with  5,000  spindles,  must  be  about  155  feet  long  and  45 
wide,  4 stories  in  height,  and  contain  about  140  looms,  with  other  suitable 
machinery  for  picking,  warping,  sizing,  &c.  Such  an  one  with  a few  shops 
and  out-houses  appurtenant  and  land  and  water  privilege,  would  cost  from 
$140,000  to  $220,000,  according  to  the  materials  for  building,  whether 
wood,  brick  or  stone,  and  the  distance  from  navigable  waters,  so  as  to  affect 
cost  of  privilege,  freight,  &c.  with  other  circumstances  too  numerous  for 
recital.  If  bleaching  or  printing  cloths  be  added,  more  expense  will  be  ne- 
cessary, and  more  persons  than  250,  the  average  for  such  an  establishment 
including  machinists. 

This  would  be  a permanent  investment  of  capital  in  buildings,  water 
power,  machinery  and  all  appurtenances  equal  to  $28  or  $44  per  spindle, 
independent  of  the  temporary  investment  of  capital  to  buy  raw  cotton,  pay 
wages,  &c.  It  would  oftener  reach,  and  even  exceed  the  latter  sum  than 
only  the  former.  (See  table  K,  on  capital.)  In  1810  it  was  computed, 
that  the  capital  actually  invested  in  machinery  and  real  estate,  averaged 
$60  per  spindle.  (Report  of  1810.)  It  is  not  proposed  here  to  go  into  any 
comparisons  of  this  expense  now  with  former  periods,  or  with  other  coun- 
tries, except  in  regard  to  to  the  spindie  alone,  and  the  macliinery  as  a 
whole.  For  the  rest  see  table  K. 

In  1806,  when  machinery  could  not  by  law  be  exported  from  England, 
and  the  machinists  here  were  unskilful  and  few,  the  spindle  and  its  appur- 
tenances from  the  picker  to  the  loom  inclusive,  it  is  computed,  cost  $30 
each  ; or  3 to  400  per  cent  higher  than  it  cost  at  that  time  in  England,  and 
over  double  its  present  cost  in  the  United  States. 

The  great  fall  in  its  cost  and  value  since,  with  various  improvements  in 
machinery,  has  been  the  cause  of  much  loss  to  many  capitalists  em- 
ployed in  the  manufacture.  By  A.  D.  1820,  the  machinery  cost  only  about 
double  its  then  value  in  England.  In  1826,  the  machinery  was  made  here 
on  an  average,  for  about  $14  per  spindle,  and  though  now  lower  it  still 
costs  from  40  to  60  per  cent  more  than  in  England.  The  whole  machi- 
nery there  and  the  mill  cost  only  $4,1 6 per  spindle.  (Baines  368,  414.) 
But  that  includes  probably  no  looms,  &c.  and  merely  the  building  without 
the  water  or  steam  power,  and  the  mule  spindle,  moved  by  hand,  and  costing 
less  than  half  what  the  throstle  spindle  costs,  and  v/hich  is  driefly  in  use 
here.  In  France,  in  1832,  the  spindie  alone,  which  is  about  half  the  ex- 
pense of  all  the  machinery,  cost  $8.  It  used  to  cost  there  $10.  (See 
Hocklin’s  Evid.)  Now  the  spindle  alone  costs  here  about  $4^  if  of  the 
throstle  kind,  and  $2^  if  of  the  mule  kind.  In  some  places  in  the  United 
States  5 per  cent  higher.  The  former  alone  cost  here,  late  as  1826,  it 
is  said,  $8  each.  The  spindle  used  in  the  filling  frame,  quite  extensively 
at  this  time,  costsabout  $6. 

These  may  constitute  useful  andsuflicient  data  for  further  computations. 
As  a matter  of  some  curious  interest  it  may  be  added  that  one  ])omid  of  cotton 
usually  makes  8 yds.  of  coarse  muslin,  and  is  then  increased  m value  from 
the  raw  cotton  eiglit-fold.  But  if  spun  into  the  finest  yarn,  it  is  worth  5 


55 


[ Doc.  No.  146.  ] 

guineas,  and  in  1780,  if  woven  into  muslin  and  tamboured  was  worth 
^15.  (5  Anderson’s  History  of  Com.  878.)  It  may  now  be  converted 

into  a piece  of  lace  worth  100  guineas.  Senior  s Outline  of  Polit.  Econ. 
162, 178.  In  India,  in  1786,  they  could  spin  cotton  threads  over  115  miles  to 
the  pound  ; in  England  they  have  since  been  spun  167  miles  long  from  a 
single  pound.  Baines,  page  59.  Niles’  Keg.  page  181,  March  24, 1821.  One 
pound  of  cotton  spun  into  No.  100  yarn,  extends  about  84,000  yds.  in  length. 
Smithers’s  His.  of  Liv.  page  127.  llie  yarn  spun  yearly  in  England  would 
reach  round  the  globe  203,775  times  or  over  600  times  each  day.  Baines, 
page  431. 

They  use  flour  for  sizing,  &c.  in  cotton  manufactures,  42J-  pounds  to  each 
spindle  per  annum.,  or  four  pounds  weekly  to  each  loom.  In  this  country  but 
one  pound  weekly  to  each  loom.  McCulloch,  448,  as  to  report  of  1832. 
But  at  Lowell,  3,800  barrels  to  4,197  looms  yearly,  or  near  four  pounds 
each  per  week.  In  England  three  times  as  many  spindles  and  factories 
are  moved  by  steam  as  by  water.  Edin.  Rev.  page  472  (1835).  In  the 
United  States  not  one  in  a Imndred  factories  is  moved  by  steam.  The 
power  to  move  all  the  cotton  mills  in  England,  equals  that  of  44,000  horses, 
of  which  only  11,000  is  by  the  water  wheel.  Baines,  395.  In  1824,  the 
whole  power  was  estimated  at  only  10,572  horses.  Sup.  to  Encyclop.  Brit. 
‘‘Cotton.”  Each  factory,  of  common  size  and  employment,  requires  from 
60  to  80  horse  power  here,  or  about  114  horse  power  to  1,000  spindles. 

[6]  For  the  number  of  spindles  in  England,  in  1789,  see  Smithers’s 
History  of  Liverpool,'  page  124.  For  1812,  Edinburgh  Encyclop.  arti- 
cle “Cotton;”  for  1817,  Edinburgh  Rev.  (1827);  for  the  rest,  in  1811 
and  in  1824,  Sup.  to  Cyclop.  Brit.  “Cotton;”  and  the  others,  Baines’s  Hist. 
368,  and  McCulloch,  441,  &c.  &c.  The  above  numbers  include  Scotland. 
The  first  cotton  mill  built  in  Ireland,  was  in  1780.  London  Cyclop,  article 
“ Cotton,”  and  Sup.  to  Encyclop.  Brittan.  “ Cotton.”  In  1824,  Ireland  had 
145,000  spindles.  Sup.  to  Encyclop.  Brittan.  “ Cotton.” 

[7]  For  1812,  in  France,  see  Q,uart.  Rev.  page  397,  (1824  ’5,)  and 

French  Industry,  by  Cliaptal,  page  15,  who  says,  they  then  spun  only 
about  30  millions  of  pounds;  this  was  a large  number  for  the  cotton  spun, 
as  the  spindles  were  poor  and  imperfect.  For  1832,  see  Niclio.  Koechlin’s 
evidence  before  the  Chamber  of  Peers ; that  is  from  one-half  to  one  million 
too  high,  as  grounded  on  an  English  estimate,  which  was  too  large,  too 
many  for  the  quantity  of  cotton  spun;  for  1818,  from  2 Cliaptal,  page  145, 
who  makes  220  factories.  Very  little  spining  by  machinery,  in  France, 
till  after  1785.  (Quarterly  Review,  394,  (1824  ’5).  First  in  1787,  (Sup.  to 
Cyclop.  Brit.  “Cotton,”) though  cotton  had  been  spun  on  wheels  since  1767. 
See  2 Chaptal’s  Industry  of  France,  page  4.  And  the  cotton  cloths  were 
chiefly  made  from  thread  or  yarn  imported  from  England,  Switzerland, 
and  the  Levant.  There  were  large  numbers  of  cotton  pocket  handker- 
chiefs made  at  Rouen,  Montpelier,  &c.  early  as  1789.  2 Chaptal’s  Indus- 

try of  France,  page  4. 

France  had,  in  1818,  70,000  looms  for  cloth,  and  10,500  for  spining 
hosiery.  2 Cliaptal  on  French  Industry,  page  150.  But  his  estimates  on 
all  these  subjects  are  considered  high.  In  1806,  her  looms  for  cloth  in 
twenty-two  departments  are  stated  at  only  28,634.  Ijondon  Cyclop,  art. 
“Cotton,”  In  1806,  the  estimate,  as  to  the  number  of  spindles,  is  from  the 


56 


[ Doc.  No.  146.  ] 

London  Cyclop,  art.  “ Cotton;”  it  is  increased  a little,  for  the  rest  of  France 
not  included  in  the  above  article,  and  is  about  one  spindle  to  25  pounds  of 
raAV  cotton  spun  that  year,  which  is  a fair  proportion,  when  the  goods  made 
are  fine,  and  the  machinery  is  not  of  the  best  quality.  See  note  above, 
and  supplement  to  Encydop.  Brit.  art.  Cotton.”  Power  looms  are  not 
much  used  yet  in  France,  West  Rev.  Ap.  \33. 

[8]  Some  spindles  and  looms  moved  by  machinery  have  been  introduced 

into  India ; but  most  of  the  cotton  manufactured  there  is  by  women  and 
in  households  : the  men,  who  aid  in  weaving,  are  also  often  laborers  on  the 
land.  Report  of  the  committe  on  the  aifairs  of  the  East  India  Com.  App. 
310,  1832.  Wade  on  Midd.  Classes,  page  576.  Yarn  is  often  imported 
from  England,  it  is  there  spun,  so  much  cheaper  by  machinery.  Smithers, 
127.  So  in  Saxony,  Russia,  &c.  Supplement  to  Cycloped.  Brit.  “ Cot- 
ton,” In  China,  it  is  said,  cotton  mills  with  spindles. &c.  have  been 
forbidden.  In  Egypt  they  have  been  introduced,  but  do  not  succeed 
v/ell  from  the  dryness  of  the  air,  its  impurities  by  fine  sand,  and  want 
of  skill;  (Hodgden,)  but  they  are  still  used  by  the  Government.  In 
Spain,  in  1802,  were  3,705  work  shops  for  cotton  or  small  manufac- 
tories, and  1,494  looms.  1 Diet,  of  Com.  65.  3 do.  198,  larger.  In. 

Switzerland,  the  first  mill  with  machinery,  was  built  in  1798 ; London 
Cyclop,  art.  “ Cotton,”  where  is  some  notice  of  a few  spindles  in  other  parts 
of  Europe,  viz:  Saxony,  Russia,  Prussia,  &c.  So  in  Sup.  to  Encydop. 
Brit.  “Cotton.”  And  in  West.  Rev.  for  App.  1833.  The  number  in  the 
table  is  from  Sup.  to  Encydop.  Brit.  “ Cotton.” 

[9]  The  number  of  spindles  in  the  United  States  can  be  computed  from 
the  data  before  given.  For  those  before  1835,  see  Pitk.  Stat.  526,  and 
McCulloch,  page  448,  and  Reuss.  Am.  Tr.  270.  Those  for  1809^nd  1810, 
the  last  too  high  in  his  table — see  Gallatin’s  Report  for  the  number  in  1807 
and  1811.  Those  at  some  other  dates  are  from  manuscript.  Gales  and 
Seaton’s  Documents,  2 Finance,  page  432.  Those  for  1814,  are  from 
Cox’s  tables.  Ditto,  page  694,  and  Seybert  Statistics,  page  7,  and  were  re- 
turned between  1810  and  1814.  For  1820  and  1822,  Niles’  Register,  page 
35,  March.  1823.  Tiiose  for  1835,  are  estimated  by  me  on  former  data. 
In  1810,  Cox  in  his  tables  returns  269  mills,  but  too  many,  if  over  one- 
eighth  of  them  were  for  cotton  Very  fev/  spindles  v/ere  in  each  of  those 
built  before  1807  and  ’8.  The  spindles  in  1830,  are  from  the  manufac- 
turers’ convention,  gnd  only  12  States,  but  included  most  of  the  manufac- 
tories. Those  had  33,506  looms,  to  about  million  of  spindles,  or  near 
1 to  40.  At  Lowell,  129,828  spindles  exist  to  4,197  looms,  or  1 to  32. 
This  is  near  one-thirteenth  of  all  the  spindles  in  the  United  States.  Lowell 
Statistics,  1836.  The  first  milhbuilt  there  was  in  1822,  and  in  1826,  only 
2,500  spindles.  See  Boot’s  letter  to  Carey.  About  78,000  spindles  a year 
should  be  added  here  to  make  cotton  cloth  sufficient  to  meet  the  demand 
of  the  present  annual  addition  to  our  population.  The  spindles  have  in- 
creased somewhat  faster  than  that  ratio  the  last  five  years,  and  have  increased 
beyond  the  exports  of  cotton  goods.  Of  the  number  of  spindles  liere  at  dif- 
ferent periods  in  factories,  those  in  1790  or  1791,  wmre  in  one  mill  at  Provi- 
dence, erected  by  Slater  and  Brown  ; those  in  1805  were  mostly,  if  not  all,  in 
Rhode  Island^  and  two  in  Massachusetts,  and  only  8 or  10  mills.  One  was 
begun  at  New  Ipswich,  in  New  Hampshire,  as  early  as  1803,  it  is  believed 


57 


[ Doc.  No.  146.  ] 

and  one  or  two  in  Massachusetts,  and  one  in  Connecticut  before  1808, 
one  near  Philadelphia  before  1798,  making  in  all,  at  that  time,  15  mills. 
Of  the  spindles  in  1815,  about  118,000  were  in  the  same  State.  Galla- 
tin’s Rep.  1810;  New  tiarapshire  Gazetteer,  article  “New  Ipswich.”  The 
Waltham  factory  in  Mdssachu setts  was  not  erected  till  1810  or  1814, 
and  heis  since  devoted  much  capital  to  making  machinery.  There  was 
a great  increase  in  1806  and  ’7;  again  during  the  war  of  1812;  again 
from  1820  to  1825 ; and  in  1831  and  ’2.  If  prices  continue  high  as 
the  past  year,  and  the  raw  material  falls,  or  is  stationary,  the  new  markets 
in  Asia,  and  increased  demands  in  Europe  and  America,  by  increased  use 
of  cotton,  and  increased  population,  will  enlarge  the  number  of  factories 
here  ; but  it  is  very  easy,  with  our  extensive  water  power,  and  cotton  lands, 
to  overstock  the  market. 

It  seems  that  tAvo  machines  for  spinning  and  carding  were,  Avith  much 
difficulty,  obtained  in  this  country,  at  Philadelphia,  early  as  1788.  One 
carded  40  pounds  of  cotton  a day,  and  the  other  had  50  spindles,  and  the 
growth  of  cotton  was’  urged  on  the  southern  States,  and  the  use  of  these 
machines  in  families  recommended.  In  3 Care^ds  Museum  see  the  descrip- 
tion more  at  large.  In  5 Carey’s  Mi'isemn,  (A.  I).  1790,)  it  is  said,  a rnodei 
of  a cotton  mill  and  machineiy,  (fee.  as  used  in  Enc-land,  had  been  obtained 
at  Philadelphia,  by  the  society  for  promoting  manufactures  and  useful  arts. 
It  would  seem  that  T.  Cox,  Esq.  took  an  active  part  in  urging  the  cultiva- 
tion and  manufacture  of  cotton  on  the  country  early  as  1787.  Rees’s  Cy- 
clop. art.  “United  States,”  and  Gales  and  Seaton’s  Doc.  page  676,  vol.  2,  of 
Finance.  The  English  prohibited  the  export  of  the  cotton  machinery,  as 
Avell  as  the  emigration  of  their  mechanics,  under  such  penalties  as  delayed 
the  introduction  of  it  here,  and  caused  the  price  of  machinery  for  many 
years  to  be  so  high  here  as  to  retard,  and  almost  defeat  successful  competi- 
tion. See  before. 

[10]  For  a detailed  account  of  the  different  kinds  of  machinery  used 
in  the  cotton  manufactories,  the  inventors  of  them,  improvements  in  them, 
(fee.  See  London  Cyclop,  art.  “ Cotton,”  and  same  article  in  the  New 
Edinb.  Eocyclop.  and  supplement  ffi  Encyclop.  Brit.  “Cotton.” 

[11]  The  change  of  late  years  in  some  places  in  England,  from  the  hand 
to  the  poAver  loom,  has  caused  some  distress,  and  the  employment  of  a 
larger  portion  of  females  and  children  ; novv  about  one-hfth  there  are  men, 
one-third  .women,  and  the  rest  children.  - Wades’  Hist,  of  the  Middling 
Classes,  pages  570  and  ’1.  The  number  of  hand,  looms  in  England,  in 
'1820  and  1830,  Avas  about  the  same,  viz:  240,000,  but  that  of  power  looms 
had  increased  from  14,000  to  55,000.  Each  of  the  latter  performs  as  much 
as  three  of  the  former.  Wade,  261.  Parliamentary  papers,  in  1830.  In 
1834  the  power  looms  had  become  100,000.  Baines,  237. 

[12]  The  American  throstle  spindle  revolved  7,500  times  before  1833^ 
though  it  used  to  run  in  England  only  4,500,  and  afierAvards  only  5,400» 
West.  Rev.  for  April,  1833,  page  403.  Machinery  and  skih,  a^'id  the  raw 
material  have  so  improved,  that  where  some  3^ears  ago  the  .threads  broke  at 
the  rate  of  13  per  cent.,  they  break  noAV  only  3 per  cent.  Do.  Many 
modern  improvements  in  machinery  in  England  are  from  America.  West. 
Rev.  Ap.  1833. 


58' 


[ Doc.  No.  146.  ] 


M. 

COTTON,  MANUFACTURES  OF. 


Values  of  exports  of  their  own,  from — 


Eng 

land. 

France. 

Germany. 

Spain. 

Turkey  and 
Africa. 

India. 

U.  States. 

China. 

Years 

Dollars. 

Dollars. 

Dollars. 

Dolls. 

Dollars. 

Dollars. 

Dollars. 

Dollars. 

Millions. 

Millions. 

Millions. 

Mil’ns. 

Millions. 

Millions. 

Millions. 

Millions. 

Offi.  Value. 

1789 

6 

1790 

8 

1791 

9 

1792 

9i 

1793 

1794 

lU 

1795 

111 

1796 

m 

1797 

17 

1798 

17 

1799 

28 

1800 

261 

1801 

33 

1802 

37 

20 

1803 

34 

5 

1804 

41 

i 

1805 

45 

1806 

50 

f 

4 

1807 

48 

1808 

61 

1809 

92 

’ 

1810 

90 

1811 

68 

1812 

78 

1813 

_ 

_ 

_ 

18 

Real 

or  dec. 

value. 

1814 

84 

95 

1 

1815 

106 

98 

1 

! 

1816 

86 

74 

1817 

101 

76 

' 

1818 

98 

89h 

1819 

88i 

70 

1820 

107i 

79 

— 

_ 

_ 

_ 

_ 

3 

1821 

113 

77 

1822 

128 

82 

1823 

137 

82| 

1 

1824 

143 

86 

6h 

1825 

135 

86 

1826 

119 

7H 

_ 

_ 

_ 

_ 

Ito 

If 

1827 

157 

831 

_ 

- 

_ 

_ 

1828 

1591 

81 

_ 

_ 

_ 

^To 

1829 

197 

83| 

4| 

_ 

_ 

li 

1830 

188 

81 

10 

_ 

_ 

n 

1831 

208 

83 

101 

_ 

_ 

_ 

1832 

209 

831 

10^ 

, _ 

_ 

_ 

1833 

222 

881 

11 

_ 

_ 

_ 

i 

1 23 

1834 

98h 

10 

_ 

_ 

_ 

2—*^ 

(88) 

1 

1835 

88| 

[8]  [9] 

[1] 

[2] 

[3] 

[4] 

[9] 

[5] 

[10]  1 

[^] 

U] 

[11] 

59 


^ [ Doc.  No.  146.  ] 

[1]  The  exports  of  English  manufactures  in  1833  and  4,  were  about 
one-third  in  value  in  yarn.  See  Edinburgh  Review,  472,  (1835)  Baines’s 
and  Official  Reports.  See  table  K,  note  on  capital.  Some  years  yarn  com 
stitutes  one-half  in  weight. 

From  1814  to  1823  inclusive,  the  value  of  yarn  exported  compared  with 
the  value  of  other  cotton  goods  increased  slowly,  from  being  about  one- 
seventh  and  one-sixth,  to  be  about  one-fifth.  London  Cyclopedia,  article 
Cotton.”  The  proportional  increase  of  yarn  has  been  even  greater  since. 
See  Parker’s  speech  in  Parliament,  February,  1836.  The  yarn  exported 
is  understood  to  be  generally  coarse ; between  No.  18  and  40.  From 
half  to  three-quartefs  of  the  lace  made  is  exported  chiefly  to  the  continent. 
It  is  mostly  made  of  sea-island  cotton,  and  equals  near  9 millions  of  dollars 
in  value  yearly,  McCulloch,  page  744. 


[2]  The  diffeience  between  the  official  value  on  exportation,  and  the 
declared  value  is  given  above.  But  the  declared,  or  what  is  sometimes  called 
the  real  value,  in  the  2d  column  is  still  usually  from  2^  to*5  per  cent,  under 
the  actual  market  value.  (Baines,  page  403.)  The  official  value  is  founded 
on  the  quantity,  computing  the  price  as  it  was  about  the  close  of  the  17th 
century,  or  A.  D.  1689.  The  market  value 
official  in  some  arti  cles  than  in  others,  e.  g. 

In  1829,  calicoes  plain  per  yard 


has  changed  more  from  the 


calicoes  printed  per  yard 

u u u u 

cotton  yarn  and  twist  per  cwt 


£10 

7 


Is. 

0 

1 

0 

0 

5 


3d. 

6 

6 

8i 

0 

0 


Official. 

real. 

official 

real. 

official 

real. 


(Baines,  page  351.)  See  more  on  prices  of  manufactures,  table  K,  note  1. 

The  sum  entered  for  1835,  is  only  for  the  year  ending  5tli  Jan.  1835, 
and  not  any  subsequent;  and  the  second  sum  for  1834,  is  for  the  year  1834 
only  to  5th  Jan.  while  the  first  sum  for  1834,  is.  probably  for  the  whole 
fiscal  year.  Some  discrepancies  occasionally  arise  by  the  statements  being 
made  with  difierent  terminations  for  the  year,  as  some  end  in  April,  and 
some  in  January,  &c.  See  returns. 


[3]  The  exports  of  cotton  manufactures  from  England  are  now,  and  for 
some  years  have  been,  nearly  equal  to  one  half  of  her  exports  of  every 
kind.  The  above  sums  for  England  are  from  Baines,  page  350.  The  re- 
cords for  1813  and  before  that,  for  the  declared  value  were  burned.  Those 
sums  do  not  include  Ireland,  amounting  from  one-tenth  to  three-tenths  of 
a million  yearly.  Aikin.says  63  per  cent,  of  what  is  made  in  England  is 
exported,  and  Edinburgh  Review,  page  472,  says,  in  1833,  that  the  exports 
from  England  were  about  18|-  million  pounds  sterling,  and  consumption 
about  twelve  and  one-tenth  million  sterling.  See  for  1831,-2  and  3, 
McCulloch,  675. 


[4]  The  exports  from  France  in  1823  and  4,  are  from  2 Dictionary 
Spanish  Commerce,  page  148.  In  1829,  from  Edinburg  Review,  page  62, 
(1829.)  In  1833,  from  Baines  525,  note,  and  in  1831  and  2,  from  the 
French  tables  of  commerce,  with  a slight  addition  or  variation,  it  is  be- 
lieved, in  some  cases  in  the  value  of  the  franc.  In  1830  from  Westmin- 
ster Review,  April,  1833,  and  Wade  on  Working  Classes,  575,  and  that  7 
millions  were  printed  goods. 


60 


[ Doc.  No.  146.  ] 

[5]  Those  from  Spain  in  1803,  were  chiefly  from  her  possessions  in 
India  and  America.  Dictionary  of  Spanish  Commerce.  Spain  of  late 
imports  largely  of  cotton  manufactures.  See  table  O,  note  1,  and  table  N. 
The  Moors  introduced  this  manufacture  into  Spain,  early  as  the  9th  or  10th 
centuries.  Baines,  page  38. 

[6]  Those  from  India  are  estimates,  and  might  be  extended,  from  the  fol- 
lowing data.  Her  islands  and  she  have  long  had  a domestic  trade  in  cotton 
goods.  3 Crawford’s  Hist,  of  Ind.  Archip.  350.  It  then  spread  to  other 
parts  of  Asia,  to  the  eastern  coast  of  Africa,  and  next  to  Europe. 

India  in  1813,  exported  to  England  alone  10  millions  of  dollars  worth 
of  her  cotton  goods,  and  now  impoi'ts  as  much  from  England.  Montgo- 
mery’s Anglo.  East.  Emp.  But  she  still  exports  certain  kinds  to  England 
valued  in  1831,  at  about  2 millions  of  dollars  ; in  1832,  at  1|-  milhons ; and 
in  1833,  at  1 million.  Some ’of  these  are  re-  exported.  McCulloch,  page  672 
and  676  ; Evid.  on  East  Ind.  Comp  page  310,  App.  In  1802,  3,  and  4,  the 
United  States  imported  cotton  goods  of  India  origin,  worth  nearly  3 million 
dollars  per  year.  • Seyb.  page  218.  Hence  the  exports  of  cotton  manu- 
factures from  India  formerly  were  large.  But  they  have  fallen  off  greatly, 
and  especially  since  1816,  to  the  United  States.  Pitk.  Stat.  188  and  9.  She 
often  exports  raw  cotton  of  late  years,  instead  of  cotton  manufactures. 
Supplement  to  Encyclop.  Britt.  Cotton.”  See  Seyb.  Stat.  page  289,  on  our 
whole  imports  thence  in  1814,  and  chiefly  cottons.  See  above. 

[7]  Those  exports  from  the  United  States  are  from  official  tables.  They 
doubtless  would  have  increased  much  more  rapidly,  had  the  demand  for 
them  at  home  not  been  so  great,  by  means  of  their  good  quality,  cheapness 
and  oiir  increasing  population. 

[8]  The  wliole  exports  of  cotton  goods  from  China  to  England  and  her 
dependencies  in  1832,  were  valued  at  about  ^ million  of  dollars.  McCul- 
loch, 237,  article  “ Cotton,”  and  page  240,  where  is  given  the  pieces  of  nan- 
keens so  exported  from  1793  to  1831,  which  alone  at  50  cents  each,  would 
range  from  |ith  to  ^ million  of  dollars  yearly.  In  page  813,  he  thinks 
the  exports  of  nankeens  have  been  on  the  increase  to  different  quarters. 

From  China  the  exports  of  cotton  goods  consist  chiefly  of  chintzes  and 
nankeen,  and  the  amounts  in  the  table  are  estimates.  The  former  have 
greatly  diminished' of  late  years.  Supplement  to  Encyclop.  Britt.  Cotton.” 
She  imports  now  both  English  and  xMnericaii  cotton  goods.  (See  exports 
of  them.*  Tables  N,  and  O. 

In  1802,  3,  and  4,  the  United  States  alone,  it  is  estimated,  imported 
Chinese  cotton  goods  valued  from  1 million  of  dollars  to  1-^  million 
yearly.  See  official  returns  of  all  articles  imported  from  China,  Gales  and 
Seaton’s  Doc.  page  599  in  1 vol.  on  Com.  and  Nav.  Formerly  the  United 
States  imported  largely  of  nankeens,  so  as  some  years  to  export  mil- 
lion of  dollars  of  tliern  as  in  A.  D.  1792,  Gales  and  Seaton’s  Doc.  page 
144,  vol.  1,  Com.  and  Nav.  But  our  official  returns  since  as  well  as 
before  1821,  do  not  discriminate  the  cotton  goods  imported.  From  1818  to 
1827,  they  fell  off  from  about  1 million  to  million.  Pitk.  Stat.  305,- 
McCulloch,  page  242. 


61 


[ Doc.  No.  146.  ] 

[9]  The  exports  of  cotton  goods  from  Germany  are  chiefly  by  land  and 
not  extensive.  This  trade  could  not  have  existed  at  all  formerly,  and  the 
estimates  are  too  uncertain  for  much  reliance. 

In  and  near  Vienna  are  established  considerable  cotton  manufactures  by 
machinery.  Supplement  to  Ency.  Britt.  Cotton.”  According  to  McCul- 
loch Diet,  page  448,  the  cotton  exports  from  Austria  are  chiefly  in  yarn. 
They  are  on  the  increase.  See  Wade  on  Working  Classes,  page  576. 

[10]  From  Turkey,  including  th-e  products  of  Smyrna  and  the  neigh- 
borhood as  well  as  Barbary  and  Morocco,  there  have  been  frequently  ex- 
ported in  former  years,  various  articles  of  cotton  manufacture  ; but  not  of 
great  value  as  a whole.  This  manufacture  was  introduced  into  Turkey 
in  Europe  in  the  14th  century  by  the  Turks.  Some  cotton  cloth  was  im- 
ported from  the  coast  of  Africa  to  England  about  the  close  of  the  16th 
century.  The  growth  and  manufacture  of  cotton  were  diffused  much  by 
the  Mahometan  conquests.  2 McPherson’s  Com.  193  ; Baines  32. 

[11]  The  barrenness  of  this  table  is  another  illustration  of  the  small 
extent  in  the  foreign  trade  of  cotton  goods  except  by  England,  France  and 
the  United  States.  It  presents  also  a singular  illustration  of  the  recent 
date  of  their  progress  in  it,  and  of  the  difficuity  in  knowing  mucli  of  the 
ancient  or  older  business  of  India  and  China  in  this  branch  of  their  trade, 
with  such  accuracy  as  to  deserve  reliance ; though  more  leisure  might 
probably  have  enabled  me  to  present  some  more  statistical  facts  on  that 
subject,  than  I have  yet  met  with.  See  the  diffusion  of  this  manufacture 
by  the  Mahometans  from  Arabia  &c.  note  (10)  in  this  table,  and.  (5). 

In  1825,  the  Dutch  exports  and  imports  at  .fapan,  are  given  (McCul- 
loch, page  812,)  and  the  former  as  well  as  the  latter  contained  a few  cotton 
goods,  from  5 to  $8,000  in  value. 


62 


[ Doc.  No.  146.  ] 

N. 

COTTON— MANUFACTURES  OF. 


Exports  of  their  own — to  what  places — values  of. 


England  to  United  States. 

England  to  France. 

England  to  Germany. 

England  to  Netherlands. 

England  to  India  & China, 

England  to  S.  America  and 
Mexico,  except  Brazil. 

Various  places  to  Spain. 

1 Various  places  to  Russia. 

England  to  Brazil. 

yj 

. Dollars. 

Dollars. 

Dollars. 

Dollars, 

Dollars. 

Dollars. 

Dol’s. 

Dollars. 

Dol’s. 

Millions, 

Millions. 

Millions. 

Millions. 

Millions. 

Millions 

Mill’s. 

Millions. 

Mil’s. 

1789 

- • 

1790 

- 

4 

1791 

- 

^1 

1792 

- 

1 

1793 

1794 

1795 

1796 

1797 

1798 

1799 

1800 

1801 

1802 

" 

1803 

- 

_ 

- 

— 

20 

1804 

• 

% 

1805 

Real 

Offi.  or  dec. 

1806 

17  21 

1807 

17  21 

1808 

11  14 

1809 

‘ 

1810 

» 

1811 

1812 

— 

to  ^ 

1813 

1814 

— 

_ 

— 

1815 

_ 

_ 

_ 

1816 

— 

/ ■ 

— 

— 

f 

1817 

— 

— 

_ 

2 

1818 

— 

— 

— 

— 

3i 

1819 

- 

- 

- 

63 


[ Doc.  No.  146.  ] 

N. — Continued. 

COTTON-MANUFACTURES  OF. 


Exports  of  their  own — to  what  places — values  of. 


Years. 

England  to  United  States. 

[ England  to  France. 

England  to  Germany. 

England  to  Netherlands, 

England  to  India  & China. 

England  to  S.  America  and 
Mexico,  except  Brazil, 

Various  places  to  Spain, 

1 V arious  places  to  Russia. 

England  to  Brazil. 

Dollars. 

Dollars, 

Dollars. 

Dollars, 

Dollars. 

Dollars, 

DoFs. 

Dollars. 

Dol’s, 

Millions. 

Millions. 

Millions. 

Millions. 

Millions. 

Mil’s. 

Millions. 

Mil’s. 

Real 

Offi.  or  dec. 

Whole  sum. 

1820 

- 

8.700 

20 

5 

4 

_ 

_ 

1821 

8,500 

18 

5 

5i 

1822 

18,000 

19 

54 

1823 

7 

22,000 

14| 

7 

6 

1824 

55,000 

13i 

H 

— 

_ 

2tV 

1825 

11 

57,000 

154 

7 

4 

1826 

119,000 

14 

6 

1827 

8 

122,000 

14| 

6f 

6| 

1828 

8| 

110,000 

13| 

6| 

5i 

1829 

122,000 

14i 

6i 

- 

71 

* 4 

1830 

50,000 

14 

6 

— 

81 

1831 

13 

240,000 

Hi 

64 

9f 

nm 

— 

-■ 

3* 

1832 

8tV 

318,000 

16| 

8| 

- 

6 

64 

1833 

^-To 

450,000 

Hi 

9tV 

8 

64 

- 

64 

8 

00 

,o, 

1834 

8r\ 

730,000 

16i 

10 

n 

■ 8 

5 

6 

1835 

ll] 

[10] 

[4] 

[9] 

[2] 

[5] 

[6] 

m 

[8] 

[3] 

[9] 

[1]  This  table  shows  chiefly  the  exports  of  cotton  goods  from  England 
to  different  places,  and  from  1820  to  1833  the  values  are  mostly  taken  from 
official  documents.  Porter’s  tables,  161-7,  page  300.  The  statements  in 
different  books  sometimes  differ  from  referrins:  to  different  terminations  of 
the  year. 

[2]  Since  1832  Belgium  has  taken,  in  that  year  and  1833,  about  1|-  mil- 
lions of  the  amount  of  what  is  placed  to  the  whole  Netherlands  from  En- 
gland. In  1834,  it  is  said  by  Alexander,  she  imported  of  cotton  goods, 
from  all  places,  about  2J  millions  of  dollars,  and  smuggled  twice  as  much 
more,  that  did  not  appear  on  the  official  returns. 


64 


[ Doc.  No.  146  ] 

[3]  The  exact  consumption  of  manufactured  cotton  goods  in  each  coun- 
try is  seldom  attainable.  But  an  approximation  to  the  quantity  or  value 
can  be  easily  made  from  the  data  given  in  the  tables.  Thus  the  quantity 
of  cotton  manufactured  in  each  and  not  exported,  will,  with  the  imports  of 
cotton  manufactures  not  afterwards  re-exported,  constitute  nearly  the  true 
amount. 

Another  general  mode  of  computation  might  be,  that  in  such  countries 
as  Turkey,  it  has  been  estimated  that  only  two  pounds  of  raw  cotton  per 
head,  made  into  manufactures,  is  consumed.  (Urquhart’s  Views,  page  150.) 
In  warmer,  and  still  poorer  countries  it  v/ould  be  less.  In  France,  each 
person  is  estimated  to  consume  $4  v/orth  of  cotton  goods  per  year;  in 
England,  $5;  and  here  probably  $6. 

The  exports  to  Germany  and  Netherlands  are  from  one-third  to  one-half 
in  twist  and  yarn,  and  are  woven  there.  Porter’s  tables,  page  300,  and 
Baines,  416.  So  in  a great  proportion  to  Russia.  Sup.  to  Encyclop.  Brit. 
‘‘^Cotton;”  and  some  even  to  India.  See  table  O.  So  chiefly  to  Prussia. 
Blackwood’s  Magazine,  for  January,  1836. 

[4]  The  exports  to  France  from  1789  to  1793  are  computed  at  5 millions 
of  dollars  yearly,  in  Quar.  Review,  394-9  (1824-5).  See  official  returns 
for  the  table,  and  McCulloch,  page  644.  But  it  must  include  all  smuggled, 
and  is  then  not  too  high.  It  equals  the  whole  amount  of  all  the  regular 
imports  of  cotton  goods  into  France  at  that  time  from  all  quarters.  2 Chap- 
tal’s  Industry  of  France,  page  9.  The  sums  in  the  table  for  1789,  &c.  are 
from  Bowring’s  Report,  page  52,  who  says  that  10  millions  of  dollars 
worth  of  English  manufactures,  and  chiefly  cotton,  are  of  late  years  smug- 
gled from  England  to  France.  See  also  Baines,  517,  note.  The  whole 
imports  of  such  goods  into  France  in  1823  were  9 millions  of  dollars;  in 
1824,  12  millions  of  dollars.  In  1806,  about  14^-  millions  of  dollars  worth 
were  smuggled.  Sup.  to  Encyclop.  Brit.  ‘‘Cotton.”  See  2 Dictionary  of 
Spanish  Commerce,  page  214.  In  1812  all  the  legal  imports  of  cotton 
goods  into  France  were  less  than  a third  of  a million  of  dollars.  2 Chaptal, 
page  9.  Of  those  smuggled,  in  late  years,  quite  2 millions  of  dollars  worth 
were  in  bobbinet  laces.  McCulloch,  1054. 

[5]  The  exports  to  India  include  the  islands,  and  for  1831  and  1832  are 
from  McCulloch,  page  446,  and  the  others  mostly  from  official  tables.  See 
more  in  McCulloch,  235,  as  to  tlrat  part  by  the  East  India  Company.  The 
trade  in  cotton  manufactures  has  increased  greatly  since  the  first  opening 
of  it  in  1814.  Do.  533-4,  and  539,  another  table, 

[6]  These  exports  to  Spain  were  chiefly  from  England,  France  and 
Italy,  and  some  from  Spanish  America.  (Dictionary  of  Spanish  Commerce.) 
Those  direct  to  Spain  from  England,  in  1833  and  1834,  were  only  about 
-j-t-  million  of  dollars.  But  England  exported  to  Gibraltar,  in  those  years, 
from  1 to  14-  millions  of  dollars  in  cotton  goods,  (see  official  tables)  and 
which  found  their  way  in  part  into  Spain.  McCulloch,  Die.  page  600. 
The  sum  for  1834  is  a computation  only  on  the  tibove  data,  and  the  fact  that 
Franco  exports  therefrom  2 to  2^  millions  of  dollars  yearly.  See  table  O, 
note  [Ij. 

[7]  The  imports  into  Russia  in  1832  were  almost  wholly  from  England. 
Porter’s  tables,  545 ; Baines,  416.  In  1833,  from  Eiigland,  6 millioBS  of 


65 


[ Doc.  No.  146.  ] 

dollars;  and  in  1834  only  5-J-  millions  of  dollars.  Some  of  them  go  to 
places  in  the  Black  Sea,  &c.  McCnlloch,  859.  Russia  excludes  certain 
cotton  cloths,^  but  not  yarn.  Blackwood’s  Magazine,  for  February,  1836, 
page  62.  On  others  her  tariif  is  high.  2 Smith’s  Com.  Dig. 

[8]  Exports  to  Brazil,  &c.  See  McCulloch,  446;  Baines,  416;  and  Offi- 
cial Reports  for  1834  and  1835. 

[9]  England  exports  largely  cotton  goods  also  to  Italy  and  Italian  islands  : 
in  1833,  7 millions  of  dollars;  and  in  1834,  10  millions  of  dollars.  See 
more  in  IdcCuilocli,  page  814,  and  page  1212,  some  to  Yenice,  now  yY  a 
million. 

The  ratio  of  tills  kind  of  exports  from  England,  in  1834,  was  as  follows: 
1.  Germany;  2.  Italy ; 3.  United  States ; 4.  India  and  China ; 5.  Holland; 
6.  Brazil;  7.  Russia;  8.  Turkey  and  Greece,  in  1833  and  1834,  over  4 
millions  of  dollars  each,  year;  9.  .Portngjil  and  islands,  in  some  years  3 to 
4|  millions  of  dollars;  10.  British  West  Indies  ditto,  3 to  3|-  millions  of 
dollars;  11.  Chili  alone  24  to  3 millions  of  dollar?;  12.  States  of  Rio  de 
la  Plata  alone  14  to  24  millions  of  dollars.  See  official  returns,  and  Baines, 
416.  These  for  Germany  go  iargehy  to  Trieste.  McCnlloch,  1186. 

The  whole  exports  to  Germany  in  1833,  were  estimated  to  be  so  divided 
that  from  10  to  11  millions  of  dollars  were  in  cloths  and  laces,  and  the  re- 
mainder in  yam,  being  35  millions  of  pounds.  Beside  Trieste,  part  of 
tiiese  exports  pass  tiiroiigh  the  Haiise  towns,  and  others  throngh  Rotterdam 
and  Antwerp.  Blackwood’s  Magazine,  for  Janiiary,  1836. 

[10]  Tliose  exports  to  the  United  States  are  obtained  chiefly  from  our 
own  official  returns  of  imports,  tliough  some,  and  especial! v tiie  earliest, 
are  from  Eiiglish  tables. 


(6 


[ Doc.  No.  146.  ] 

O. 

COTTON,  MANUFACTURES  OF, 


1787 

1789 

1790 

1791 

1792 

1793 

1794 

1795 

1796 

1797 

1798 

1799 

1800 
1801 
1802 

1803 

1804 

1805 

1806 

1807 

1808 

1809 

1810 
1811 
1812 

1813 

1814 

1815 

1816 

1817 

1818 
1819 
'1820 

1821 

1822 

823 


France  to  the 
United  Slate.s. 

France  to 
England. 

France 

to  her  colonies. 

O . 

a 1 

3 'S 

i 

Dollars. 

.^Dollars. 

Dollars. 

Dollars.  I 

Exports  of  their  owh,  to  what  places,  values  of, 


x\fiIlions. 


Millions. 


Millions. 


Millions. 


O 

• in  O 
& 0-1 


0)  . 

‘3  CO  S 


Dollars. 


United  States  to 
India  & Africa. 

United  States  to 
China. 

Dollars. 

Dollars. 

Millions. 


s 0 
_i 

2 0 

2 « 


Dollars. 


United  States  to 
the  West  Indies. 


[ Doc.  No.  146.  ] CT 

O, — Continued. 

COTTON,  MANUFACTURES  OF, 


Exports  of  their  own,  to  what  places,  values  of, 


1 

Fiance  to  the 
United  States, 

France 
to  England. 

France  - 
to  her  Colonies. 

German)^  to  the 
United  State.s. 

1 

United  States  to 
So.  America 
and  Mexico. 

United  States  to 
India  & Africa. 

1 

1 

United  Stales  to 
China-. 

United  States  to 
. the  West  Indies,  i 

i ! 

1 i 

Dollars. 

Dollars. 

Dollars. 

Dollars. 

Dollars. 

Dollars. 

Dollars. 

Dollars. 

Millions. 

Millions. 

Millions. 

Millions. 

Millions.: 

1824 

1 

.3 

_ 

1 

1 8 

1825 

1 

r> 

- 

- 

4 
1 0 

Whole 

sum 

stated. 

1826 

i 

— 

— 

i 

s 

1 0 

10,000 

14,000 

99, (K>® 

1827 

— 

— 

3 

T a 

9 

1 0 

13,000 

9,000 

66, (KW 

1828 

1 

■2 

- 

2 

8 

3 0 

22,000 

14,900 

46,000 

1829 

1 i 
’2’ 

— 

— 

4 

3 0 

1 E 
1 0 

37,000 

26,000 

49,000 

1830 

— 

— 

4 

1 

75,000 

56,000 

47,000 

1831 

l-g- 

1 

2 0 

— 

_9_ 

9 

1 0 

66,000 

49,000 

41,000 

1832 

H 

9 

1 (i 

— 

9 

1 0 

83,000 

88,000 

53,000 

1833 

i 

JL  V 

1 

6 

1-?- 
^ 1 0 

120,000 

215,000 

86,006 

1834 

UV 

- 

1 to  3 

3 

1 0 

nv 

186,000 

152,000 

127,00® 

1835 

[4].l 

' 

[2] 

__  _ [3] 

[1]  Over  half  of  the  exports  of  France,  in  her  cotton  manufactures,  ^ 
to  her  own  colonies,  according  to  Baines,  525,  note ; but  this  is  too  liiMcIi 
for  1831  and  ’2.  France  exports  also,  about  $1,000,000  of  them  per 

to  Holland  land  Belgium,  one-half  million  to  Germany,  two  and  a half  mii- 
lion  to  Spain,  and  one  million  to  Sardinia.  See  Tables  of  French  Gem- 
nierce,  for  1832.  In  1831,  the  export  was  short  of  a million  to  IIollaiiiL 
and  Belginm,  Sardinia  and  Germany  each,  about  two  millions  to  SpaiiHg 
over  11  to  Mexico,  and  only  aboih  one  milhon  to  her  own  colonies,  wilit 
one-fourth  of  a million  to  Hayti.  Her  exports  to  England  given  in  the. 
table,  are  from  her  official  tables  for  1831  and  ’2.  Besides  that  some  is 
smuggled. 

[2]  Those  exports  from  the  United  States  are  compiled  from  officisl 
tables,  as  far  as  they  go  back,  discriminating  to  what  country.  Those  te 
the  United  States,  from  France  and  Germany,  are  from  our  own  officM 
returns. 

[3]  Tariff  or  duty  on  cotton  manufactures.  The  exports  of  eottom 
manufactures  to  any  particular  country  are  often  influenced  by  the  rate  of 
duty  imposed  on  their  importation.  A detail  of  the  several  tariffs  of 


QS 


[ Doc.  No.  146.  j' 

those  countries,  in  respect  to  cotton  goods,  would  be  tedious,  and  might 
be  supposed  to  bear  on  the  question  of  protection,  &c.  in  the  United  States, 
and  which  question,  it  is  not  proposed  in  these  tables  or  notes,  to  agitate. 

It  may  be  added,  that  the  average  duty  imposed  in  France,  at  this  time, 
on  tlie  imports  of  most  cotton  goods,  is  very  high,  amounting  almost  to  a 
prohibition,  except  for  re-export  So  in  Russia.  Blackwood's  Magazine, 
for  January,  1836.  In  England,  it  is  considered  to  lae  about  20  per  cent, 
though  low  as  10  on  some  articles.  Before  1826,  it  was  much  higher,  50 
and  67  per  cent.  See  1 Com.  Digest,  by  Smith,  page  98,  and  Huskisson’s 
speeches,  in  1825,  in  Parliamentary  Debates.  McCulloch,  page  1117.  In 
the  Ihiited  States,  the  duty  in  1790^  was  about  7^  per  cent,  on  the  value  of 
most  cotton  goods  ; in  1794,  raised  to  12-i  per  cent.;  in  1816,  to  25  per  cent, 
and  a minimum ; in  1824,  the  same  with  a certain  minimum  valuation, 
making  the  duty  larger ; in  1828,  increased  still  more  by  raising  the  mini- 
mum; in  1832,  reduced  again.  See  the  different  acts  of  Congress  on  the 
tariff,  and  Pitk.  Stat.  page  188. 

This  makes  the  average  duty  in  1833,  on  most  cotton  cloths,  and  as  com- 
puted by  some,  about  42  per  cent,  and  thus  exposes  it  to  a biennal  reduc- 
tion till  1842,  when,  by  the  existing  laws,  it  will  become  only  20  per  cent. 
Campbell  on  Tariff,  page  120.  The  duty  on  British  cotton  manufactures  has 
latel}^  been  increased  in  Java,  by  the  Dutch,  from  6 per  cent  to  25  per  cent. 
Blackwood’s  Magazine,  January  1836,  page  51. 

[4]  More  could  be  given  on  the  exports  of  cotton  manufactures 
from  a few  of  the  above  countries  at  otlier  periods,  but  the  amount 
and  value  of  them  were  so  small  as  to  deserve  very  little  notice,  and  the 
increases  of  late  years,  compared  with  their  meagre  and  blank  condition, 
in  this  respect,  a quarter  and  a third  of  a century  ago,  are  striking  indica- 
tions of  tiie  revolution  going  on  in  Europe  and  the  United  States  in  the 
manufacture  of  cotton. 


w 


[ Doc,  No.  146.  ] 


P. 

COTTON. 

£h&ies  of  the  most  imp(rrtant  changes  in  the  cultivation^  manufacture,  and 
trade  of  cotton,  chiefly  witlim  the  feriod  to  which  these  tables  generally 
extend. 


p;i 

STiO 

1^] 

IXM 

m 

1750 

iim 

PI 

m 

17131 


11SS 

nm 

1772 

ITU. 

m 

1179 

17B1 

PI 

m2 


I085 


m 

l'Td7 

in© 


IISO 

IWl 

rm 

rm 

1796 

1797 

ms 

ITS® 

mm 

iwi 


First  ctton  yarn  spun  in  England  by  machinery,  by  Mr.  Wyatt.  Smiihers,  153. 

Cotton  first  grown  in  Surinam  by  the  Dutch,  or  perhaps  first  exported  thence. 

A patent  first  taken  out  by  Lewds  Paul  for  an  improved  method  in  carding,  and  the 
fly  shuttle  invented  by  John  Kay.  Stock  cards  were  first  used  for  colten  by  J.  Har- 
grave in  1760,  and  cylinder  cards  were  not  invented  till  1762,  and  were  first  used  by 
Robert  Peel.  Carding  not  brought  to  perfection  till  1775.  Baines,  170. 

First  mill  for  spinning  cotton  built  at  Biimingham;  moved  by  mules  or  horses;  but 
not  successful.  ' 

The  fly  shuttle  was  brought  into  general  use  in  England  in  wearing,  though  some 
postpone  the  date  to  1760.  Eaines,  116. 

Cotton  velvets  and  quillings  first  made  in  England. 

Arkwright  obtained  his  fi'nst  patent  for  the  spinning  frame,  though  he  made  further 
improvements  in  1768.  Becanie  free  1784.  Baines  .says  his  first  patent  was  in  1769. 
So  does  Wade,  and  that  his  second  patent  was  in  1771. 

Two  years  after,  Thomas  Highs  claims  to  have  invented  the  spinning  jenny,  which  J. 
Hargrave  claims  also  in  1767.  Smithers  and  McCulloch,  436.  Edinb.  Encyclop, 
art.  “Cotton;”  or,  according  to  Baines,  in  1764. 

The  stocking  frame  applied  to  make  lace  % Hammond. 

The  feeder  invented  by  Lees,  and  the  crank  and  combs  by  Hargrave. 

A bill  passed  to  prevent  tire  export  of  machinery  used  in  cotton  factories.  Smithers,  155. 
And  slill  in  force,  though  not  strictly  executed.  Blackwood’s  Mag.  for  Jan.  1836. 

Mule  spinning  invented  by  Hargrave,  or  rather  perfected  by  Crompton.  Baines,  p.  199. 

First  imports  c«f  rarv  cotton  into  England  from  Brazil;  poorly  prepared;  and  in  three 
to  nine  years  after,  fir.st  from  United  Stales  of  their  owngrowuh;  and  from  India 
and  Bourbon  about  1785.  See  table  F— note,  and  Smithers,  156. 

Watt  took  out  his  patent  for  the  steam  engine,  though  some  sa}"  in  1769  the  first  one  ; 
and  got  into  general  use  to  move  machinery  in  1790.,  He  begun  his  improvemmnts  in 
1764,  according  to  Wade’s  History  of  the  Middling  Classes,  page  82. 

A bounty  granted" in  England  on  the  export  of  certain  cotton  good.?.  4 McPkers.  42  and  56. 

Powmr  looms  invented  by  Doct.  Cartrvright  ; though  previous  to  that  some  similar 
models  had  existed  which  had  not  been  patented  or  used.  Baines,  228.  Supplement 
to  Encyclop.  Brit.  art.  “ Cotton.”  Steam  engines  used  m cotton  factorie.?.  Baines,  226. 
Cylinder  printing  invented  by  Bell.  Baines,  267.  Arkw'right’s  patent  .expired,  and 
a great  impulse  to  manufactures  of  cotton.  4 McPherson,  79  and  81. 

Bleaching  first  performed  by  oxymuriatic  acid  by  Bertholett.  Baines,  184. 

First  machinery  to  spin  cotton  put  in  operation  in  France,  though  some  cotton  was  used 
in  spinning,  &c.  since  1767.  Encyclop.  Brit.  407. 

Sea  island  cotton  first  planted  in  the  United  Smtes;  and  upland  cotton  first  cultivated 
for  use  and  export  about  this  time,  or  three  or  four  years  previous.  Some  say  in 
1786.  See  tables,  and  Baines,  297 : and  others  in  1790. 

First  cotton  factory  built  in  the  United  States  in  Rhode  Island.  [8]  Water  power  first 
applied  to  the  mule  spinner  by  Kelly.  Baines,  205. 

The  cotton  gin  invented  by  E.  W^hitney,  in  the  United  Sta  es.  This  is  often  stated  to 
be  in  A.  D.  1795;  but  the  patent  is  dated  in  1794,  March  14. 

Sea  island  cotton  chiefly  subsiiluted  for  Bourbon  cotton  in  England. 

First  mill  and  machinery  erected  in  Switzerland  for  cotton. 

Spinning  by  machinery  introduced  into  Saxony.  Encyclop.  Brit.  41 L 

Pow-nr  looms  moved  by  wnter  or  steam  succeed  in  Scotland. 

Dressing  and  warping  machine  for  power  looms  invented  by  Radclift'and  Jackson,  and 
contributed  much  to  their  success.  Blackwood’s  Mag.  for  Jan.  1836.  An  act  passed  in 
in  England,  requiring  in  cotton  mills,  as  well  as  some  others,  certain  clothes  for  ap- 
prentices— not  to  w'ork  them  more  than  12  hours  each  day — and  certain  instructions 
in  letters  to  be  given  to  them,  &c.  Wade’s  History,  page  98. 


[ Doc.  No.  146.  ] 

P — Dates  of  most  important  changes^  ^*c. — Continued. 


71 


1803 

1804 

1805 

1806 
1807 


1809 

1810 

1811 

1812 

1813 

1814 

1815 

1816 

1817 

1818 

1819 

18-20 

1821' 

1822 

1823 

1824 

1825 


1826 

1827 

1828 

1829 

1830 


1831 

1832 


1833 

LS34 

1835 

[10] 


First  cotton  factory  built  in  New  Hampshire.  , See  table  L,  note  [9].  Power  loom,  as 
now  used,  perfected  in  Elngland,  and'patented  by  Harrock. 

Power  looms  successfully  and  widely  introduced  into  England  aficr  many  failures. 

The  revolution  in  Spanish  America  begins  to  furnish  new  markets  for  cotton  manufac- 
tures. 

Stamping  the  cylinders  for  printing  cloth  by  means  of  dies  introduced  at  Manchester. 

Lace  machinery  much  improved  by  H.eathcott. 

Digest  of  cotton  manufactures  in  the  United  States  by  Mr.  Gallatin,  and  another  by  T. 
Cox,  Esq.  and  public  attention  drawn  to  their  growing  importance. 

A patent  for  making  bobbin  lace  by  machinery,  by  John  Burn;  though  invented  by  Mr. 
Heathcott  in  180!h  McCulloch',  743. 

The  India  trade  made  more  free,  and  more  British  manufactures  sent  there;  took 
effect  April  4,  1814.  McCulloch,  page  538. 

) The  povv^er  loom  introduced  into  the  United  States  first,  at  Waltham,  in  1815,  it  is  said, 

\ in  Am.  Encyclop.  art.  “ Cotton.” 

India  cotton  goods  less  imported  on  acco-unt  of  the  minimum  in  the  tariff -of  1816.  Pitk. 
Stat.  188.  Same  year  the  fly  frame  was  introduced  into  England. 

New  method  of  preparing  sewing  cotton  invented  by  Mr.  Holt.  Cotton  averaged 
about  31  cents  per  pound  ; the  higliest  of  any  year  in  the  United  States  since  1801. 

New  cotton  lands  sold  very  higli  in  the  United  States. 

Steam  power  first  applied  with  success  extensively  to  lace  machinery. 

First  cotton  factory  erected  at  Lowell. 

First  export  of  raw  cotton  from  Egypt  to  England. 

Higher  duty  imposed  in  the  United  States  on  foreign  cotton  manufactures  by  the  mini- 
mum priiiciphu  See  table T),  note  [3]. 

Self-acting  m-ule  spinner  patented  in  England  by  Iloberts.  Baines,  207.  Same  year 
the  tube  frame' introduced  there  from  America.  Cotton  rose  to  21  cents  per  pound, 
and  great  speculations  in  it  in  the  United  State.s. 

First  exports  of  American  cotton  manufactures  to  any  considerable  value. 

Elighest  duty  in  the  United  States  on  foreign  cotton  manufactures.  Table  O,  note  [3], 

About  this  time  Mr.  Dyer  introduces  a machine  from  the  United  States  into  England 
to  make  cards. 

Duty  on  cotton  manufactures  imported  into  the  United  States  reduced.  Table  O,  note  [3J. 
By  1 & 2 William  4,  it  was  provided  in  England,  that,  in  cotton  mills,  Avork  should 
not  be  done  in  night  by  minors,  and  but  9 hours’  AVork  on  Saturdays.  W ades  Hist.  p.  1 13. 

Further  opening  of  India  trade  increases  the  market  there  for  English  and  American, 
cotton  goods. 

Colton  rose  to  164  cents  pSr  pound—  higher  than  any  other  year  since  1825. 

ExtensAe  purchases  of  neAv  cotton  lands  in  the  United  States. 


[1]  111  the  iGth  century,  cotton  manufactures  ca-me  to  Europe  from  India, 
throiio-h  the  trade  of  Yenice.  Smithers,  118.  Ee  says  they  were  intro- 
duced into  China  from  India  about  200  lyears  earlier,  (Smithers,  page  152,) 
haviog  existed  in  the  latter  country  from  the  first  knowledge  of  it.  From 
Venice  the  trade  in  them,  and  then  the  manufacture,  went  to  Flanders  about 
1560.  They  existed  in  Arabia  in  the  7tli  century.  Found  in  America 
when  discovered,  at  the  close  of  the  15th  centiny. 

[2]  In  the  llt'i  century,  A.  D.  1641,  raw  cotton  came  to  England 
from  Cyprus  and  Smyrna,  and  was  taken  from  London  to  Manchester  to 
be  worked  np.  Smithers,  119.  Edin.  Rev.  (1827'-)  page  2.  Though  cot- 
ton manufactures  had  been  imported  early  as  A.  D.  1500 ; and  the  .first  act 
of  Parliament  relating  to  them,  nominally,  passed  in  A.  D.  1565,  though 


72 


[ Doc.  No.  146.  j 

probably  woollens  were  intended.  Table  A.  note  [12].  Calicoes  were  im- 
ported before  1631.  Smithers,  pa^^e  152.  Made  in  London.  A.  D.  1681 ; 
and  those  from  India  prohibited,  1721.  Smithers,  page  153.  Baines,  79. 

Raw  cotton,  in  18th  century,  canne  chiefly  from  the  French  West  Indies, 
Surinam,  Brazil,  and  isle  of  Bourbon,  till  near  its  close,  when  the  imports 
began  from  the  United  States,  India,  &c.  Smithers,  123.  In  1660,  Eng- 
land prohibited  her  colonies  from  sending  it  to  other  than  British  ports  or 
dependencies.  1 McPherson’s  Com.  488^ 

[3]  Muslins  first  made  at  Paisly,  in  Scotland,  A.  D.  1700  ; but  they  did 
not  succeed  well,  nor  cambrics,  till  1725,  in  Glasgow. 

In  1759  French  cambrics  and  lawns  were  prohibited  by  law.  Smithers, 
154. 

[4]  111  1769,  Arkwright  built  cotton  mills  at  Nottingham,  and  1780,  at 
Cromford,  &c.  the  first  moved  by  horse,  and  the  next  by  water  pov.mr.  He 
made  new  improvements,  and  took  out  new  pcdents,  and,  in  1780,  com- 
menced actions  for  violating  Iris  patents,  in  which  he  failed,  (Smithers,  155,) 
though  in  some  former  trials  on  his  first  patent  he  succeeded.  Supplement 
to  Encyclop.  Brit.  “ Cotton.” 

Populace  began  to  destroy  cotton  machinery  in  Lancashire  in  1779. 

The  first  spinning  machines  had  only  a few  spindles,  say  8 ; hut  after- 
wards increased  to  80,  (Do.)  and  sometimes  to  120.  McCulloch’s  Diet, 
page  433. 

On  machinery  of  other  kinds,  see  in  table,  A.  D.  1738. 

[5]  The  raw  cotton  of  India,  the  Siirats,  and  Bourbons,  was  first  imported 
into  England  in  1783.  Before,  tliat  from  Cayenne,  Surinam,  Demarara, 
St.  Domingo,  and  Elssequibo,  ivas  chiefiy  used.  Smithers,  155.^ 

[6]  But  Wyatt’s  invention  does  not  appear  to  have  been  well  matured  or 
much  brought  into  use,  though  he  and  Paul  took  out  a patent  in  1738. 
Baines’s  Hist  McCulloch’s  Diet.  439 — note. 

[7]  It  is  a remarkable  fact,  that  the  cotton  mannfacinre  was  so  little 
known  and  appreciated  in  England  when  Adam  Smith  published  his 
Wealth  of  Nations,  (in  A,  D.  1776.)  that  the  subject  is  believed  not  to  be 
xllnded  to  by  him  in  the  slightest  manner  So,  in  1794,  it  is  believed  Mr. 
Ja)^  was  not  aware  that  cotton  was  or  would  be  exported  from  the  United 
States.  Pitk.  Stat.  page  198.  See  table  F,  note  9-,  page  33.  In  Postleth- 
waite  s Diet.  Cotton,”  1766,  he  urged  its  cultivation  in  English  plantations 
suited  to  it,  and  seemed  to  anticipate  the  increasing  importajice  of  its 
manufacture. 

[8]  Mr.  Gallatin  states  this  to  be,  1791,  in  his  report  on  domestic  manufac- 
tures, April  17, 1810.  See  Gales  and  Seaton’s  Doc’s,  v.  2,  on  Finance,  p.  425. 

[9]  Cloths  were  sent  abroad  to  be  bleached  till  1750,  and  revquiied  8 months, 
then  reduced  to  4 months,  and,  in  1784,  Watt  introduced  the  practice  of 
bleaching  with  chlorine  into  England  in  a fev/ hours.  Baines’s  Hist.  246  and  7. 

[10]  Many  of  the  above  dates  and  facts  appear  in  the  other  tables  aaid 
notes ; but  they  are  collected  here  in  chronological  order,  wfith  some  other 
material  events,  for  the  purpose  of  presenting,  in  one  view  or  statement, 
the  diflerent  periods  in  which  the  chief  progress  from  fifty  to  a Inindred 
years  past  has  been  made  in  the  growth,  cultivation,  and  trade  of  cotton. 


73 


[ Doc.  No.  146.  ] 

a. 


Extracts  as  to  the  subject  of  Cotton^  from  the  Annual  Treasury  Report 

in  December^  1S35. 

1.  From  this  it  ap]>ears  that  our  whole  exports,  of  every  kind,  in  the  last 
live  years,  incliidino-  the  estimates  for  1835,  have  not  exceeded  those, 
during  a similar  term,  from  1803  to  1807.  inclusive,  but  about  forty  mil- 
lions, and  being  an  excess  no  larger  than  at  most  intervening  periods, 
while  an  extraordinary  increase  has  taken  place  in  our  exports  of  domestic 
products,  exceeding,  in  value,  those  during  that  term  more  than  one  hun- 
dred and  hity  millions,  and  being  quite  doubled  the  excess  at  most  inter- 
vening periods.  Indeed,  it  will  be  seen  that  they  have  been  almost  a 
hundred  per  cent,  larger  than  tiiey  were  in  any  similar  term  of  years  pre- 
vious to  1816,  and  have  exceeded  tliose  during  such  a term,  only  ten  3iears 
ago,  Fy  the  sum  of  about  one  hundred  and  fifteen  millions;  a difference 
greater  than  the  whole  amount  of  all  our  exports  of  domestic  products 
during  the  first  five  years  midei’  our  present  form  of  government.  Tlie 
recent  average  rate  of  increase  in  these  exports,  however,  lias  not  been 
large,  independent  of  the  article  of  cotton;  nor  is  it  likely  to  augment 
during  the  few  ensuing  years.  Adopting  a comparison  between  every 
term  of  ten  years,  fi'om  1792,  ’93,  and.  ’94,  to  1832  ’33  and  ’34,  and  including 
all  articles,  it  appears  that  the  whole  exports  of  domestic  produce  exhibit 
an  increase  in  the  last  thirty  years  of  less  than  three  per  cent,  amiualiy,  or 
a rate  considerably  lower  than  that  of  oiir  population,  though,  in  the  pre- 
vious term  often  ^rears,  by  the  great  prosperity  from  our -new  form  of 
government,  and  tlie  rapid  progress  in  the  cultivation  of  cotton,  that  in- 
crease was  near  eight  per  cent.;  and  in  the  high  price  and  large  exports  of 
this  article  in  the  last  term  of  ten  years,,  it  has  been  about  five  per  cent, 
annually.  But  as  that  price  has  of  late  been  unusually  high,  and  is  now 
lower,  and  as  tlie  demand  for  cotton  abroad  in  the  ensuing  year  is  not 
likely  to  exceed,  if  it  equal,  the  late  customary  ratio,  amd  on  which  some 
interesting  facts  may  be  seen  in  the  statement  annexed,  (E,)  the  value  of 
our  whole  domestic  exports  (over  one-half  of  which  now  consists  of  cotton) 
wi"  irobably  be  less  in  1.836  than  in  1835. 


. it  may  be  instructive,  in  respect  to  the  estimates  of  our  future  pro- 
ceeds from  lands,  to  recollect  that,  after  tlie  jiresent  system  commenced,  the 
sales  never  amounted,  i,ii  fact,  to  one  million  of  acres  a year  till  1815,  nor 
to  two  millions  a year  till  the  temptations  of  the  credit  system,  and  the 
great  rise  in  the  price  of  cotton  to  26  and  34  cents  per  pound,  induced 
larger  purchases,  extending  to  over  two  millions  of  acres  m 1817,  and 
aooiit  5|-  millions  in  1819;  and  thus,  even  fifteen  i^ears  ago,  exceeding  in 
quantity,  by  nearly  a million  of  acres,  the  large  sales  of  1834,  and  exceed-, 
ing  them  in  the  sum  promised  to  be  paid,  by  the  almost  incredible  amount 
of  more  than  twelve  millions  of  dollars.  Bsit  the  fall  of  cotton  in  1820j 
to  only  about  half  its  former  price,  combined  with  other  causes,  left  the 
purchasers  in  debt  to  the  Government  over  twenty-two  millions  of  dollars, 
and  with  the  change  from  the  credit  to  the  cash  system,  reduced  the  sales 
again  to  much  less  than  a nnliio]!  of  acres  a year,  caused  nearly  six  mil- 
ions  of  the  former  sales  to  revert,  and  kept  tliem  dov/n  to  less  than  a mil- 
lion in  every  year  after,  till  tlie  rise  of  cotton  in  1825  gave  a new  impulse. 


74 


[ Doc.  No.  146.  ] 

till  they  reached  a million  again,  in  1829.  Since  that,  increasing  still  more 
rapidly,  they  have  exceeded,  during  1834,  four  millions  of  acres,  and 
during  1835,  probably  nine  millions.  Among  those  other  causes,  the  more 
extensive  introduction  of  steam  power  on  the  western  fivers  and  northern 
lakes,  with  the  public  improvements  in  their  navigation,  and  the  increased 
fecilities  of  intercourse  by  rail-roads  and  canals,  have  of  late  added  much 
to  the  sales  of  the  public  lands  beyond  previous  years,  and  beyond  the 
proportional  increase  of  population.  To  the  force  of  these  causes  have 
been  joined,  during  the  last  three  years,  as  formerly  suggested,  the  effect  of 
the  pre-emption  law,  the  increase  in  the  price  of  cotton,  and  the  unusual 
abundance  of  surplus  capital  in  1835  seeking  new  investments.” 

3.  Beside  what  has  already  been  remarked  on  the  influence  which  the 
increased  cultivation  of  cotton  in  this  country  has  in  various  ways  exer- 
cised, and  is  likely  to  exercise  hereafter,  on  our  revenue  from  customs  and 
lands,  it  might  be  made  a subject  of  further  and  very  interesting  inquiry, 
in  connection  with  the  uncertainty  of  the  estimates  on  those  subjects,  affect- 
ing, as  that  cultivation  does,  more  remotely,  not  only  our  revenue  from 
lands  and  customs,  but  the  balance  of  trade  and  the  export  of  specie,  as 
well  as  tlie  continuance,  by  means  of  mutual  dependence  among  great  in- 
terests, of  many  of  our  Te^^-ceful  and  prosperous  relations,  both  at  home 
and  abroad.  But  without  entering,  on  this  occasion,  into  further  details 
concerning  any  of  these  points,  it  may  be  mentioned  as  a very  striking 
result  connected  with  the  last  one,  and  as  furnishing  a strong  presumption 
in  favor  of  greater  exemption  hereafter  from  fluctuations  by  war  and  com- 
mercial restrictions,  that  while  the  quantity  of  cotton  exported  from  this 
country  has  increased  from  half  a million  of  pounds  in  1790,  to  over  three 
hundred  and  eighty  millions  in  1835,  and  has  exceeded  in  value,  during 
six  of  the  last  ten  years,  all  our  other  exports  of  domestic  products  of 
every  description,  the  manufacture  of  it  at  home,  and  chiefly  in  the 
northern  States,  has  increased,  from  consumiup’  onlv  a few  bales  more,  to 
ninety  millions  of  pounds  yearl^r,  and  to  that  extent  creates  a new  and 
strong  ])ond  of  reciprocal  advantage  and  harmony;  and  that  while  we  now 
furnish,  instead  of  the  small  quantity  in  the  first  years  of  our  Government, 
quite  fifteen -sixteenths  of  the  whole  consumption  of  raw  cotton  by  Eng- 
land, and  seven-tenths  of  that  by  France,  all  the  presents  exports  of  it  to 
Europe  from  all  the  rest  of  the  world  do  not  probably  equal,  if  those  two 
nations  could  obtain  the  whole,  oiie-third  of  what  they  now  consume,  or 
one-ioiirth  of  what  they  now  import  from  the  United  States  alone ; and 
thus,  while  neither  of  them  produces  any  of  the  raw  article,  except  a little 
in  some  remote  dependencies,  that  they  have  an  annual  manufacture  naw 
relying  on  it,  and  chiefly  on  the  United  States,  equal  in  France  to  eighty 
millions  of  dollars,  and  in  England  to  one  hundred  and  eighty  millions  of 
dollars,  and  constituting  in  the  latter,  after  it  supplies  her  own  large  neces- 
sities at  home,  over  one-half  in  value  of  her  great  annual  exports  to  all 
quarters  of  the  globe.” 


75 


[ Doc.  No.  146.  ] 
4. 


Exports  of  Cotton. 


Year. 

tluanlity. 

Value. 

Pounds. 

Dollars. 

1792 

1793 
1894 

138,328 

487,600 

1,601,760 

32.0Q0  , 
im272 

320:352 

3)2,22~,688 

4.59,624 

' 

742,562 

153,208 

Average. 

1802 

1803 

1804 

27-|-  millions. 
41 X do. 

38  jb  do. 

5|-  millions. 
7f  do. 

7|  do. 

3)106j-V  do. 

20f  , 

. 35.6 

6.9 

Average. 

1822 

1823 

1824 

144J- 
142  a ■ 

/ 

24 

201 

21* 

1 

3)460a 

66i 

153.5 

22.1 

Average, 

1832 

1833 

1834 

322i 

3241 

384| 

31|  ^ 

38 

494 

3)1031i  - 

1171 

344 

39.1 

Average. 

Note.— Looking  further  to  the  future  in  connection  with  the  past,  a brief 
comparison  of  the  quantity  and  value  of  our  exports  i]i  cotton  at  a few 
equi-distaiit  periods,  as  exhibited  in  the  above  table,  will  serve  to  illustrate, 
in  a condensed  form,  the  great  influence  which  the  cultivation  and  exports 
of  cotton  alone  seem  to  have  exercised,  and  are  likely  to  exercise  hereafter, 
on  the  amount  of  our  whole  exports  of  domestic  products,  and  thus  indi- 
rectly to  affect  our  importations,  and  consequent  revenue  from  customs. 
Douljtless  some  other  cultivation  and  exports  would  have  taken  the  place 
of  cotton  in  the  south  had  it  not  been  so  successfully  grown  there;  but 
they  probably  would  have  been  less  valuable,  and  will  be  so  liereafter  if 
ever  substituted  for  that;  because  the  average  increase  of  all  our  domestic 


76 


f Doc.  No.  146.  3 

exports,  iiickidiiig  cotton,  has  been  only  from  3 to  5 per  cent,  while  that 
of  cotton  alone  has  during  the  last  30  3^ears  been  on  an  average  near  25  per 
cent,  annually.  But  of  late  the  ratio  of  increase  in  cotton,  though  still  much 
greater  than  that  of  other  exports,  has  become  diminished  and  more  settled, 
having  fallen  from  quite  500  per  cent,  during  the  first  ten  years  of  our  pre- 
sent Government,  to  only  about  10  per  cent,  during  the  last  ten,  though  the 
whole  annual  quantify  now  exported  exceeds  the  enormous  amount  of  380 
millions  of  pounds.  This  10  per  cent,  increase  yearly,  considering  the  vast 
quantity  now  grown  in  the  United  States,  and  how  fully  the  cotton  raised 
in  the  other  quarters  of  the  world  has  already  been  excluded  from  the 
European  markets,  with  other  circumstances  named  in  the  body  of  the 
report,  may  be  justly  estimated  both  as  a more  regular  ratio  than  any 
which  has  prevailed  heretofore,  and  as  something  larger  than  its  probable 
increase  in  the  ensuing  ten  years.” 


[ Doc.  No.  146.  ] 


77 


While  the  preceding  tables  and  notes  were  in  tiie  press,  Mr.  Adains 
-submitted  the  following  resolution,  which  was  considered  and  agreed  to : 

Resolved^  That  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  under  whose  direction 
the  printing  of  certain  tables  and  notes  on  the  subject  of  cotton,  has  been 
placed  by  this  House,  be  authorized  to  add  any  further  explanatory  notes 
on  that  subject  which  may  occur  to  him  in  the  progress  of  the  printing. 


78 


[ Doc.  No.  146.  ] 


/ 


ADDENDA. 

Table  A,  note  3,  page  9.  Other  statements  made  in  some  of  the  Atlantic 
States,  and  at  other  periods  show  a smaller  diiference  between  the  exports  ot 
1836  and  1836,  to  the  last  dates.  In  some  accounts  of  the  exports  kept  m 
the  southwest  for  the  current  year,  the  quantity  is  represented  there  to  be 
less  at  the  most  recent  dates  than  during  the  same  period  of  last  year  by 
about  70,000  bales,  and  the  stock  on  hand  to  be  about  100,000  bales  less. 

Table  B,  page  13.  Cotton  has  been  raised  in  Illinois,  and  even  in  Penn- 
sylvania. Niles’s  Register,  February  and  March,  1 822,  page  37 1 and  67. 
But  it  is  believed  not  to  be  raised  of  late  to  any  considerable  extent  north 
of  Tennessee  and  Yirginia.  This  table  shows  another  striking  fact:  that 
considerably  over  half  the  whole  crop  of  cotton  in  the  United  States  is  now- 
raised  in  the  new  southv/estern  States,  whose  outlets  are  on  the  Gulf  ot 
Mexico,  and  where  little  was  grown,  and  scarcely  any  exportation  made 
previous  to  1803. 

Table  E,  note  2,  page  ~18.  In  the  ninth  line  from  the  top,  the  price 
named  means  the  price  of  common  cotton. 

Table  L,  note  9,  page  56.  Since  these  tables  were  transmitted  to  the 
House  of  Representatives,  the  original  letter  which  was  written  in  conse- 
quence of  a circular  from  Mr.  Hamilton,  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  oh 
the  subject  of  manufactures,  dated  .lune  22,  1791,  from  Moses  Brown  to  J. 
S.  Dexter,  dated  July  22, 1791.  has  been  sent  to  me. 

It  confirms  the  statement  in  the  notes,  that  the  first  cotton  mill  in  Rhode 
Island  was  built  in  1790.  Attempts  had  been  made,  Mr.  B.  says,  by  him- 
self, in  1789,  to  get  the  machinery  into  operation  by  water,  by  means  of 
models  for  carding  and  spining,  which  the  State  of  Massachusetts  had  pro- 
cured from  abroad.  But  no  mill  was  actually  begun  until  the  autumn  of 
1789,  when  one  was  commenced  by  the  assistance  of  Mr.  Slater,  who  had 
then  recently  come  from  England,  notwithstanding  the  obstacles  which 
were  opposed  to  the  emigration  of  artists,  and  the  exportation  of  machinery. 
About  this  time  a cotton  miil  was  erected  at  Beverly,  Mass,  by  an  incorpo- 
rated company.  See  more  in  that  letter,  and  in  Gales  and  Seaton’s  Doc. 
vol.  1;  Finance,  page  142.  Piamil ton’s  Report  on  Manufactures,  and 

Pennsylvania  Mercury,  for  1789.  It  is  said  that  the  model  of  the  machine 
for  weaving  by  water  was  procured  from  England,  by  some  persons  in 
Delaware,  early  as  April,  1788.  See  Penn.  Mercury. 

[Other  small  additions  to  the  notes  of  the  later  tables  were  introduced 
into  the  body  of  them  in  the  proper  places  while  they  were  printing,  after 
the  passage  of  the  resolution,  inserted  immediately  before  these  addenda.] 


, ft-f  \ ' 


.>i: :ss' 
■:  '^  v . 'i'f  ' ■ i,  '■'  .'' -v^  ' 


v\'. 


m% 


:;J;',,V>;^;';: 


GETTY  CENTER  LIBRARY 


3 3125  00712  1912 


«!!» 


iiiiiit' 


